THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

SCHOOL  OF  LAW 


A  TREATISE 


GENERAL  PRACTFCE 


CONTAINING 


RULES  AND  SUGGESTIONS 


WORK  OF  THE  ADVOCATE 


PREPARATION  FOR  TRIAL,  CONDUCT  OF  THE  TRIAL 
AND  PREPARATION  FOR  APPEAL 


BY 

BYRON  K.  ELLIOTT 

AND 

WILLIAM  F.  ELLIOTT 

Authors  of  a  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Roads  and  Streets  and  of  a 
Treatise  on  Appellate  Procedure 


« 
VOLUME  I 

INDIANAPOLIS  AND  KANSAS  CITY 

THE    BOWEN-MERRILL    COMPANY 

1894 


COPYHIGHT   1S94 
Bl 

THE  BOWEN-MERRILL  CO. 


T 


PRESS  OF 

CARLON  &   irOLLENBECK, 

INDIANAI'OLJS. 


PREFACE 


This  treatise  is  founded  on  the  book  of  the  authors  called 
"The  Work  of  the  Advocate."  That  book  has  been  out  of 
print  for  more  than  five  years.  Yielding  to  the  request  of 
many  of  our  brethren  who  kindly  received  our  book,  we 
have  enlarged  it  into  a  treatise  on  general  practice.  In  do- 
ing this  we  have  carried  our  work  far  beyond  the  scope 
of  the  former  title,  and  for  that  reason  have  adopted  a 
more  comprehensive  one. 

Our  book,  as  it  is  now  enlarged,  covers  the  entire  work  of 
the  advocate  in  the  preparation  and  trial  of  causes.  It  be- 
gins with  the  first  steps  in  gathering  the  facts,  and  follows 
the  proceedings  through  the  preparation  for  trial,  the  con- 
duct of  the  trial  and  the  preparation  for  appeal.  Although 
we  have  enlarged  the  plan  of  the  work,  we  have  not  departed 
from  our  original  purpose  to  treat  of  matters  not  usually 
discussed  in  books,  and  our  book  covers  many  subjects  not 
touched  by  other  authors.  We  have,  however,  necessarily 
treated  some  of  the  subjects  considered  by  Judge  Thompson 
in  his  admirable  treatise  on  trials.  This  we  have  done  be- 
cause the  scope  of  our  work  required  it,  and  not  with  any 
hope  or  thought  of  improving  upon  Judge  Thompson's  ex- 
cellent work,  although  we  have  collected  very  many  later 
cases,  and  have,  also,  presented  some  of  the  topics  in  a  dif- 
ferent light  as  well  as  from  a  different  point  of  view. 

,The  preface  to  "The  Work  of  the  Advocate"  we  retain, 
for  while  the  changes  made  in  the  book  are  many,  and 
carry  it  far  beyond  the  limits  there  defined,  yet  so  much  of 

(iii) 


<^a 


S701  5 


iv  PREFACE. 

the  earlier  book  remains  that  the  preface  is  not  irrelevant 
or  inappropriate.  To  what  was  said  in  that  preface  little 
need  be  added.  We  have  endeavored  to  state  principles, 
and  to  illustrate  their  practical  application  by  copious  refer- 
ences to  the  adjudged  cases.  We  have  not  given  attention 
to  local  rules  nor  dwelt  upon  statutory  provisions.  We 
have  dealt  with  general  principles  which  prevail,  with  rare 
exceptions,  throughout  the  whole  country,  and  have  gath- 
ered cases  from  all  the  courts.  We  have  found  conflict 
among  the  cases,  and  have  freely  expressed  our  own  con- 
victions wherever  we  have  found  diversity  of  judicial  opin- 
ion, and,  in  soniie  instances,  have  ventured  to  oppose  the 
numerical  weight  of  cases,  holding  ourselves  bound  to  abide 
by  principles  rather  than  precedents. 

Byron  K.  Elliott. 

William  F.  Elliott. 

Indianapolis,  September  1,  1894- 


PREFACE 


TO 


The  Work  of  the  Advocate. 


Many  years  ago  the  elder  of  the  authors,  impressed  by  a 
remark  of  Mr.  Chitty,  became  a  close  observer  of  the  dif- 
ferent methods  pursued  by  advocates  in  the  trial  of  causes. 
The  scrutiny,  as  the  investigation  progressed,  went  beyond 
the  facts  open  to  the  observer's  unaided  perception,  and  led 
to  an  inquiry  into  the  habits  of  thought  of  jurymen.  The 
position  of  the  inquirer,  at  the  time — that  of  trial  judge — 
was  such  as  to  enable  him  to  freely  converse  with  the  jur- 
ors and  draw  from  them  their  opinion  of  the  methods  of 
the  different  advocates  who  came  before  them.  The  result 
of  the  investigation,  both  as  to  the  method  of  examining 
witnesses  and  as  to  the  course  of  argument  by  which  jurors 
are  influenced,  are  given  in  the  pages  which  follow.  It 
may,  therefore,  be  justly  said  that  as  to  these  subjects,  at 
least,  this  book  is  founded  mainly  on  experience,  although 
many  books  have  been  consulted  in  its  preparation. 

It  has  been  the  intention  and  the  hope  of  the  authors  to 
give  to  the  profession  a  book  that  shall  be  of  service  to  the 
advocate  in  the  actual  work  which  he  must  do.  It  has 
been  our  purpose  to  treat  of  matters  not  usually  discussed 
in  works  on  pleading  and  practice.  We  have,  as  we  be- 
lieve, treated  more  of  the  things  that  abide  in  the  unwrit- 
ten practice  than  of  those  which  are  found  in  books.  We 
hope  that  the   young   advocate  will   find  suggestions  of  sub- 

(V) 


VI  PREFACE. 

stantial  value,  and  we  even  venture  to  hope  that,  while  the 
advocate  of  experience  may  not  find  much  in  our  pages 
that  is  new  or  instructive,  he  may,  at  least,  find  something 
of  interest. 

In  collecting  authorities  we  have  regarded  quality  rather 
than  numbers,  and  have  referred  to  such  cases  as  seemed 
best  to  illustrate  the  points  upon  which  they  are  cited. 
We  have  examined  many  reports,  and  from  the  great  num- 
ber of  cases  have  selected  the  latest  and  the  most  instruc- 
tive. We  have  endeavored  to  make  the  book  one  that  will 
be  serviceable  in  actual  practice — one  to  which  the  advocate 
may  turn  for  instruction  and  information  in  the  hurry  and 
pressure  of  actual  work.  To  that  end  we  have  made  such 
suggestions,  stated  such  rules  and  collected  such  authorities 
as  bear  upon  the  questions  that  most  frequently  arise  in  the 
preparation  and  trial  of  causes. 

It  is  not  without  fear  of  censure  that,  in  this  day  of  many 
books,  we  submit  our  work  to  our  brethren.  We  bespeak 
their  charitable  judgment,  and,  in  mitigation  of  such  errors 
as  we  may  have  fallen  into,  we  plead  that,  for  the  most 
part,  our  path  is  one  not  much  traveled  by  book-makers, 
and  that  it  lies  through  fields  of  difficulty.  If  the  book 
shall  be  of  help  to  the  young  advocate  we  shall  not  regret 
the  labor  we  have  given  it,  nor  greatly  suffer  from  the 
censure  its  faults  may  bring  upon  us.  We  are  bold  enough 
to  hope  that  the  gratitude  of  the  young  advocate,  whom  it 
has  been  our  leading  purpose  to  help,  will  outweigh  the 
censure  of  those  who  may  think  that  we  have  added  to  the 
number  of  books  without  adding  anything  of  value  to  legal 
literature.  Byron  K.  Elliott. 

William  F.  Elliott. 

Indianapolis,  Indiana,  August,  1888. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Book  I 

THE  ADVOCATE'S  WORK  OUT  OF  COURT 
PREPARATION  FOR  TRIAL 


Book  II 

THE  ADVOCATE'S  WORK   IN  COURT 
TRIAL  PRACTICE 


VOLUME  I 


CHAPTER  I. 

LEARNING  AND  PREPARING  THE  FACTS. 

PAGE. 

§  1.  Value  of  preparation 2 

2.  Genius  of  success 3 

3.  Study  of  the  case 4 

4.  Mastering  the  facts 4 

5.  Examining  the  witnesses 6 

6.  Object  of  preHminary  examination 6 

7.  Things  seen 7 

3.   Maps,  plans  and  photographs 8 

9.  Suggestions  to  witnesses 8 

(vii) 


Vlll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I. 

PAGE. 
§  10.   'Evils  of  coaching  witnesses 9 

11.  Chitty's  advice 10 

12.  Harm  caused  by  a  bad  witness 10 

13.  Cautioning  witnesses 11 

14.  Duty  of  advocate  in  consultation  with  witnesses 12 

15.  Inspection  of  written  instruments 12 

16.  Copies  should  not  be  depended  upon 14 

17.  Client's  statement  of  contents  not  to  be  trusted 16 

18.  Circumstances  aid  work  of  construction 16 

19.  Circumstances  may  create  probability 17 

20.  Influence  of  probability 18 

21 .  Inferences 19 

22.  Groundwork  of  inference 20 

23.  Difference  between  facts  and  evidence 21 

24.  Marks  of  things 22 

25.  "Fact"  not  synonymous  with  "truth." 22 

26.  Chief  object  of  preparatory  investigation .23 

27.  Kules  of  induction  to  be  observed 23 

28.  Witness  should  be  allowed  to  tell  his  own  story 24 

29.  Securing  knowledge  of  unfavorable  evidence 25 

30.  Meeting  unfavorable  evidence 25 

31.  Difference  between  gathering  materials  and  presenting  case  in  court.  26 

32.  Committing  evidence  to  memory 26 

33.  Nature  of  evidence 27 

34.  Use  of  crude  materials 27 

35.  Means  of  making  facts  evident  to  jury 28 

36.  Ascertaining  reputation  of  witnesses 28 

37.  Identification  of  persons 29 

38.  Means  of  identifying  persons 30 

39.  Identity  of  animals 32 

40.  Identity  of  inanimate  personal  property 33 

41.  Identifying  real  property 34 

42.  Identifying  documents 35 

43.  Examination  of  client 35 

44.  Control  of  the  case 36 

45.  Tendency  of  clients  to  exaggerate 36 

46.  Written  statements  no  substitute  for  personal  examination 36 

47.  Information  as  to  client's  business 37 

48.  Prejudice  of  jurors 37 

49.  Object  of  procuring  knowledge  of  client's  standing 38 

50.  Necessity  of  consultation  with  witnesses 38 

51.  Reasons  for  promptly  examining  witnesses 39 

52.  Fastening  the  facts  in  the  mind 39 

53.  Assumption  that  the  client  does  not  know  the  law 40 

54.  Taking  client's  opinion 40 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS — VOL.    I.  IX 

CHAPTER  II. 

ASCERTAINING  AND  PREPARING  THE^LAW  OF  THE  CASE. 

PAGE. 

§  55.   What  is  to  be  assumed  at  the  outset 42 

66.   Provisional  hypothesis 43 

57.   Use  of  the  provisional  hypothesis 44 

68.  Object  of  the  search  for  the  law 44 

69.  Rudimentary  principles 45 

60.  The  search  for  the  law 46 

61.  Cases  and  principles 46 

62.  Text-books 47 

63.  General  principles 48 

64.  Determining  weight  and  influence  of  decided  cases 48 

65.  How  a  decision  should  be  considered 50 

66.  Considerations  which  affect  weight  of  decisions 50 

67.  Judicial  decisions  not  the  law  itself — When  authority 51 

68.  Obtaining  principles — Analogical  reasoning 52 

69.  How  to  search  text-books — Tables  of  cases 63 

70.  Effect  of  increase  in  number  of  reported  cases 54 

71.  Generalization  of  cases 65 

72.  Case  lawyers 56 

73.  Exceptions  to  general  rules 66 

74.  Discrimination 57 

75.  Contention  is  usually  as  to  applicability  of  general  rules 59 

76.  Law  periodicals — Leading  articles 60 

77.  Statutory  law 61 

78.  Construction  of  statutes 61 

79.  Making  law  of  the  case  available 62 

80.  Referring  to  general  principles 62 

81.  Mind  must  act  quickly   63 

82.  Practical  use  of  knowledge 64 

83.  Fixing  legal  principles  in  memory 65 

84.  Knowledge  needed  by  the  advocate 66 

85.  Business  work 67 

86.  Written  notes 67 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE    THEORY    OF   THE    CASE. 

87.  Definite  theory  must  be  adopted 70 

88.  Cases  lost  because  of  a  wrong  theory 71 

89.  Cases  gained  on  a  sound  theory 71 

90.  Other  illustrative  cases 72 

91.  Necessity  of  a  theory 73 

92.  Contests  of  forum  likened  to  battles 73 

93.  Definition  of  theory  of  the  case "4 


X  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL    I. 

PAGE. 

§  94.   Different  uses  of  word  "  theory" 75 

95.  Meaning  of  word  "  theory" 76 

96.  "  Theory  "  means  more  tlian  "  hypothesis" 77 

97.  Difference  between  theory  and  hypotliesis 78 

98.  Hypothesis— Deduction 78 

99.  Great  hiwyers  skillful  in  constructing  hypotheses 79 

100.  Hypothesis  must  be  probable 80 

101.  Fanciful  hypotheses / 81 

102.  Definition  of  hypotliesis — Common  use 81 

103.  Examples  of  hypotheses 82 

104.  Value  of  hypotheses 83 

105.  Hypotheses  necessary  in  communicating  facts  and  ideas 83 

106.  Use  of  imagination  in  forming  theory 84 

107.  Imagination  aids  in  forming  hypotheses 85 

108.  Effective  work  of  advocate  in  constructing  hypotheses 86 

109.  Working  hypotheses 87 

110.  Verification  of  provisional  hypothesis 87 

111.  Importance  of  provisional  hypothesis  in  investigating  law 88 

112.  Search  for  signs 89 

113.  Untenable  hypotheses  impair  strength  of  theory 90 

114.  Improbable  hypotheses  impair  force  of  theory 91 

115.  Arrangement  of  facts  in  theory 91 

116.  Theory  should  show  natural  relation  of  facts 92 

117.  Subsidiary  facts 92 

118.  Principal  facts  supported  by  minor  facts 93 

119.  Theory  must  inspire  belief 94 

120.  How  to  secure  belief 95 

121.  Illustrative  theories. 95 

122.  Consequences  to  which  theory  leads  to  be  considered 97 

123.  Theory  should  be  consistent  with  experience 98 

124.  Appeal  to  experience 99 

125.  Theory  should  be  clear  and  logical 100 

126.  Matters  of  law  and  matters  of  fact  should  be  kept  separate 101 

127.  Presumptions 101 

128.  Use  and  avoidance  of  presumptions 101 

129.  Presumptions  of  fact 102 

1.30.    Importance  of  presumptions 103 

131.    Defective  theories 103 

1.32.   Theory  should  be  invulnerable 105 

133.  Contests  of  forum  likened  to  naval  engagements 105 

134.  Nature  of  work  in  constructing  theory 105 

135.  Preparation  and  arrangement  of  details 106 

136.  Verification  of  theory 107 

137.  Fallacies  to  be  guarded  against 107 

138.  Inconsistent  hypotheses  to  be  avoided 108 

1.39.  Importance  of  verification  of  theory 109 

140.  Trial  court  theory  prevails  on  appeal 110 

141.  Limits  of  the  rule  that  trial  court  theories  continue  effective  on  appeal. 112 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I.  XI 

CHAPTER  IV 

COURTS. 

PAGE. 

i  142.   Coarts  the  repository  of  judicial  power 115 

143.  Courts— Definition 116 

144.  Source  of  judicial  power 118 

145.  Power  to  create  courts 118 

146.  Courts  created  by  the  Constitution 119 

147.  Creation  of  courts— Constitutional  limitations 120 

148.  Legislative  judgment — Collateral  attacks 121 

149.  Appellate  tribunals 123 

150.  Classes  of  courts — Generally 125 

151.  Courts  of  superior  and  inferior  jurisdiction 127 

152.  Courts  of  superior  general  jurisdiction 130 

153.  Courts  of  limited  jurisdiction 132 

154.  The  test  for  determining  the  rank  of  a  court 133 

155.  Legislative  courts — Influence  of  fundamental  principles 135 

156.  Inherent  and  implied  powers  of  courts 136 

157.  Court  can  not  divest  itself  of  jurisdiction 137 

158.  Term— When  it  begins 138 

159.  Duration  of  term 138 

160.  The  common  law  fiction  that  the  term  is  as  one  day 139 

161.  Terms— Business 139 

162.  Terms  of  court— Time  of  holding 140 

163.  Terms  of  court — Holding  at  improper  time 142 

164.  De  facto  terms 143 

165.  Place  of  holding  court 145 

166.  Adjourned  terms — General  doctrine 147 

167.  Adjourned  terms — Errors  and  irregularities 148 

168.  Order  for  adjourned  term 148 

169.  Notice  of  adjourned  term 151 

170.  Adjourned  term — Waiver  of  objections 151 

171.  Adjourned  term  regarded  as  continuance  of  regular  term 152 

172.  Temporary  adjournments 153 

173.  Unauthorized  adjournment 154 

174.  The  interim  created  by  adjournments  in  term — Vacation 155 

175.  Continuous  session 1.56 

176.  Special  terms— Generally 157 

177.  Special  terms — Authority  to  order 159 

178.  Special  terms — Constitutional  questions 159 

179.  Business  of  special  terms 161 

180.  Adjournment- Reasons  for  need  not  be  assigned 161 

181.  Adjourned  and  special  terms— Discretionary  power  to  order 162 

182.  Terms  of  court — .Indicia]  notice  103 

183.  Judgment  of  tlie  court  as  to  the  regularity  of  its  session — Effect  of. .  164 

184.  Presumption  as  to  regularity  of  organization 169 


xii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I. 

PAGE. 

§  185.  Relation  of  courts  to  other  governmental  departments 169 

186.  Rules— Definition 171 

187.  Rules — Power  to  frame 173 

188.  Rules— Notice  of  by  other  courts 175 

189.  Discretionary  powers — Nature  and  extent  of 175 

190.  Records. ..." 179 

191.  Control  of  records 184 

192.  Xunc  pro  tunc  entries 186 

193.  Control  of  process— Interference  of  other  courts 192 

194.  Control  of  property 193 

195.  Property  in  custodia  legis 196 

196.  Ministers  of  the  courts 199 

197.  Officers  of  court 201 

198.  Officers  of  court — Power  to  appoint 203 

199.  Officers  of  court— Control  of 204 

200.  Control  of  court-houses  and  appurtenances 205 

201.  Allowances  out  of  public  funds  205 

202.  Agreements  and  stipulations  of  parties 206 

CHAPTER  V. 

JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS. 

203.  Definition 208 

204.  Duties  of  a  judge— Generally 209 

205.  Judicial  duties  and  functions 211 

206.  Only  judicial  duties  can  be  imposed  on  judges 212 

207.  Duties  of  a  judge  can  not  be  delegated 213 

208.  De  facto  judges— Generally 214 

209.  What  constitutes  a  judge  de  facto • 215 

210.  No  man  shall  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause 218 

211.  Disqualification  of  judges  by  intei-est 219 

212.  The  degree  of  interest  that  disqualifies 220 

213.  Collateral  attacks  on  the  right  of  a  judge  to  hear  and  decide  a  case.  221 

214.  Questioning  on  appeal  the  right  of  a  judge  to  act 222 

215.  Attack  by  appeal  not  collateral 223 

216.  Disqualification  because  of  relationship 223 

217.  Various  statutory  disqualifications 224 

218.  Necessity  may  compel  disqualified  judge  to  act 225 

219.  Change  "of  judge 225 

220.  Power  to  appoint  special  judges— Generally 225 

221.  Special  judges 227 

222.  Who  appoints  judges  pro  tempore 229 

223.  Determination  of  necessity  of  appointing  special  judge 229 

224.  Mode  of  appointing  special  judges 230 

225.  Procedure  respecting  appointment  of  special  judges 231 

226.  Objections  to  special  judges 232 

227.  Presumption  of  regularity  in  appointment 234 

228.  Authority  of  special  judges 235 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I.  Xlll 

CHAPTER    VI. 

JURISDICTION. 

PAGE. 

§  229.  Determining  the  court  in  \vhi<li  to  sue ^-^8 

230.  Jurisdiction  of  courts— Definition ^-10 

231.  Elements  of  jurisdiction 243 

232.  Source  of  jurisdiction  over  legal  controversies 247 

233.  Exercise  of  jurisdiction— Instrumentalities 248 

234.  Classification 252 

235.  Appellate  jurisdiction 252 

236.  Original  jurisdiction 256 

237.  Exclusive  jurisdiction — Concurrent  jurisdiction 257 

238.  Jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject 259 

239.  Jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject 260 

240.  Distinction  between  jurisdiction  of  a  general  subject  and  jurisdic- 

tion of  a  particular  subject 262 

241.  Equity  jurisdiction 267 

242.  Law  jurisdiction 270 

243.  Jurisdiction  in  rem 270 

244.  Jurisdiction  in  personam 278 

245.  Status  of  persons— Authority  to  determine 285 

246.  Status  of  children— Authority  to  adjudge 290 

247.  Incidental  jurisdiction 296 

248.  Acquisition  of  jurisdiction— Conflict  of  authority 299 

249.  Retaining  jurisdiction  once  acquired 300 

250.  Authority  of  sovereignty  over  property  within  its  territory 301 

251.  Territorial  jurisdiction  of  courts 302 

252.  Local  actions 304 

253.  Transitory  actions 309 

254.  Domicile  as  affecting  jurisdiction 311 

255.  Presumption  of  jurisdiction — Superior  courts 315 

256.  Presumption  of  jurisdiction — Inferior  tribunals 316 

257.  Averment  of  jurisdictional  facts 318 

258.  Judgment  by  default — Presumption 319 

259.  Effect  of  assuming  jurisdiction — Implied  decision  asserting  juris- 

diction   322 

260.  Decision  that  jurisdictional  facts  exist— Conclusiveness  of 323 

261.  Recitals  of  jurisdictional  facts  or  matters 325 

262.  Collateral  proceedings 330 

263.  Judicial  proceedings  are  void,  voidable  and  regular 331 

264.  Objections  to  jurisdiction 332 

265.  Loss  of  jurisdiction 334 

266.  Exceeding  jurisdiction 338 

267.  Estoppel  to  deny  jurisdiction 342 

268.  Transfer  of  jurisdiction 347 


xiv  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL    I. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

CHOOSING    THE    FORUM,  REMEDY    AND    MODE    OF   TRIAL. 

PAGE. 

§  269.  Election  to  try  by  court  or  jury 349 

270.  Effect  of  mistake  in  choice  of  remedy 350 

271.  Facts  differently  pleaded  may  bring  different  result 351 

272.  Election  to  sue  in  tort  or  on  implied  contract 351 

273.  -Nature  of  relief  may  determine  choice  of  remedy 352 

274.  Election  of  remedy  in  case  of  fraudulent  purchase 353 

275.  Election  as  against  trustee 354 

276.  General  rule— Election  bars  inconsistent  remedy 354 

277.  Right  to  jury  trial 355 

278.  When  to  try  by  jury— Sympathy 355 

279.  When  to  try  by  court 355 

280.  Considerations  which  determine  whether  to  try  by  court  or  jury.  .356 

281.  Jury  will  generally  award  liberal  damages 356 

282.  Instructions  where  trial  is  by  jury 357 

283.  Judgment  of  jurors  on  facts  often  better  than  that  of  judge 357 

284.  Delay  and  partiality  of  judge 358 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

TIME    OF    BRINGING    THE    ACTION. 

285.  Effect  of  lapse  of  time  to  be  considered  before  bringing  action 359 

286.  When  cause  of  action  accrues — General  rules 359 

287.  Accounts 361 

288.  Agents  and  fiduciaries 362 

289.  Contracts  generally 363 

290.  Contribution 364 

291.  Conversion 364 

292.  Corporations 366 

293.  Fraud— Concealment 366 

294.  Judgments 368 

295.  Negligence 368 

296.  Nuisance. 369 

297.  Real  property 370 

298.  Trusts 372 

299.  What  law  governs 373 

300.  Election  of  remedy 374 

301.  Set-off 375 

302.  Equity— Laches 376 

303.  When  action  is  begun 377 

304.  Computation  of  time 379 

305.  Effect  of  disability 380 

306.  New  promise  or  acknowledgment 381 

307.  Special  limitations 384 

308.  Presumptions 385 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I.  XV 

CHAPTER   IX. 

PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS   AND    INCIDENTAL   MATTERS. 

PAGE. 

§  309.   Cause  of  action  must  be  complete 387 

310.  Kequisites  of  a  complete  cause  of  action 388 

311.  Damages  essential  to  a  complete  cause  of  action 390 

312.  Exceptions  to  the  rule  that  damages  must  be  shown 391 

313.  Demand — When  necessarj' 392 

314.  Demand— How  made   395 

315.  Admissions  in  demand 396 

316.  Demand— When  waived  or  excused 397 

317.  Tender — When  necessary 398 

318.  Implied  admissions  by  tender 398 

319.  Tender— How  made 399 

320.  Tender— Effect  of 401 

321.  Tender  to  be  kept  good 402 

322.  Equitable  tender 403 

323.  Waiver  of  tender 404 

324.  Offer  to  perform 405 

325.  Architects'  certificate— Engineer's  estimates 405 

326.  Taking  possession— Completing  evidence  of  title  or  right 409 

327.  Notice 411 

328.  Notice  for  inspection  of  documents 413 

329.  Effect  of  neglecting  to  take  precautionary  measures 414 

330.  Arrangements  for  trial— Depositions 414 

331.  Witnesses  and  subpoenas 415 

332.  Ascertaining  particulars  of  claim 415 

333.  Setting  forth  particulars  of  claim 416 

334.  Final  consultation  with  client 417 

335.  Notes  of  evidence 418 

336.  Trial  briefs 418 

337.  Development  of  the  theory 419 

338.  Witnesses  should  be  present— Depositions 420 

339.  Care  required  in  taking  precautionary  measures 421 

CHAPTER  X. 

BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS. 

340.  The  ancient  practice 422 

341.  The  modern  practice 423 

342.  Necessity  for  notice— Due  process  of  law 423 

343.  Writ  or  notice  must  be  authorized  by  law 424 

344.  Power  of  legislature  to  prescribe  what  the  notice  shall  be 425 

345.  Defective  process 420 

346.  Direct  and  collateral  attacks 426 


XVi  TABLE    OF    CONTETNTS VOL    I. 


PAGE. 


§  347.  How  action  is  brought 428 

348.  Style  of  process .  ^^° 

349. 
350. 


Name  aud  title  of  court  429 

Name  of  plaintiff 429 

defendant 430 


Nature  and  extent  of  plaintiff's  claim 431 

Date  of  summons  and  return 432 

and  seal 433 


351.   Name  of 

352. 

353. 

354.  Signature 

355.  Amendments 434 

356.  Service— By  whom 436 

357.  Personal  service 437 

358.  Service  by  leaving  copy  at  place  of  residence 437 

359.  Service  on  corporations 440 

360.  Service  on  partners 442 

361.  Service  on  infants 443 

362.  Service  by  publication 444 

363.  Statute  must  be  strictly  followed 445 

364.  Affidavit  for  publication 446 

365.  Order  and  notice 447 

366.  Requisites  as  to  newspaper  in  which  publication  is  made 448 

367.  Time  of  publication 449 

368.  Proof  of  publication 451 

369.  Mailing  and  posting  notice 452 

370.  Objections 453 

371.  Waiver 454 

372.  Return  and  proof  of  service 455 

373.  Privilege— Exemption  from  service  of  process 457 

374.  Capias  ad  respondendum 458 

375.  Process  on  cross-bill  and  supplemental  complaint 458 

376.  Alias  and  pluries  writs 459 

CHAPTER  XI. 

AUXILIARY  PROCEEDINGS. 

377.  Kinds  and  purpose 461 

378.  Attachment— Generally 462 

379.  When  attachment  will  lie 463 

380.  Grounds  of  attachment 464 

381.  Procedure  in  attachment 465 

382.  Filing  under  attachment 466 

383.  Property  subject  to  attachment 467 

384.  Lien  of  attachment 468 

385.  Dissolution  of  attachment 469 

386.  Garnishment— Generally 470 

387.  Procedure  in  garnishment 472 

388.  Duty  and  liability  of  garnishee 474 

389.  Ne  exeat • 476 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I.  Xvii 

PAGE. 

§390.  Injunotion — Generally 477 

391.  When  injunction  lies 480 

392.  Injunction — Procedure 486 

393.  Receivers — Generally 493 

394.  When  appointed.     . 494 

395.  Procedure  in  obtaining  receiver 495 

396.  Lis  pendens — Notice 498 

397.  Notice— Statutory 499 

398.  Doctrine  of  relation 500 

399.  Continuance  of  notice 500 

CHAPTER   XII. 

THE    INSTRUMENTS    OF    EVIDENCE. 

400.  Proper  instruments  must  be  selected 501 

401.  General  suggestions 502 

402.  Primary  and  secondary  evidence 502 

403.  General  rule — Best  evidence  must  be  produced 503 

404.  Exceptions  to  rule— When  secondary  evidence  is  admissible 503 

405.  Laying  the  foundation  for  secondary  evidence 505 

406.  Notice  to  produce  documents 505 

407.  Depositions 507 

408.  Rules  governing  the  taking  of  depositions 507 

409.  Certificate — Wliat  it  should  show 510 

410.  Return  and  publication 510 

411.  Motion  to  suppress 511 

412.  Use  of  depositions 511 

413.  Waiver  of  objections 513 

414.  Discovery— Examination  of  party  before  trial 514 

415.  Choice  of  instruments  of  evidence 515 

416.  Competency  should  be  ascertained  before  trial 515 

417.  Tendency  of  modern  legislation 516 

418.  Competency  to  be  determined  by  court — How 516 

419.  Objections  to  competency 517 

420.  Incompetency— Grounds  of  objection 518 

421.  Notice  to  witness— Subpoena — Attachment 521 

422.  Real  evidence 522 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 

423.  Province  of  court  and  jury 524 

424.  Mixed  questions  of  law  and  fact 525 

425.  Conclusions  of  law ;^26 

426.  Agency 531 

427.  Alteration  of  written  instruments 532 

B 


XVIU  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    I. 

PAGE. 
§  428.    Boundary  and  location 533 

42^>.   Cause  and  effect 633 

430.  Conlidential  and  other  relations 635 

431.  Construction  of  written  instruments 536 

432.  Construction  of  unwritten  contracts  and  language 539 

433.  Fraud  and  good  faith 540 

434.  Identity 541 

435.  Intent — Malice 542 

430.   Laws  and  ordinances 545 

437.  Negligence 546 

438.  Notice  and  knowledge 548 

439.  Payment 550 

440.  Possession  and  ownership 551 

441.  Probable  cause  552 

442.  Reasonable  time 553 

443.  "Waiver  and  abandonment 556 

444.  Miscellaneous  questions 558 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF    COURT    BY    COMPROMISE. 

445.  Advising  a  compromise 561 

446.  Matters  to  be  considered  in  advising  a  compromise 562 

447.  Authority  to  compromise 564 

448.  Offer  to  compromise 565 

449.  Consideration 566 

450.  Negotiating  a  compromise 568 

451 .  Effect  of  a  compromise 569 

452.  Abandonment  and  rescission 670 

CHAPTER  XV. 

ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 

453.  Definition 572 

454.  Classes  of  submission 573 

455.  Importance  of  discriminating  between  a  general  and  a  partial  sub- 

mission   574 

456.  Statutory  and  common  law  submissions 575 

457.  When  arbitration  is  advisable 577 

458.  When  arbitration  is  inexpedient 579 

559.    Who  may  submit 581 

460.  What  may  be  submitted 583 

461 .  Revocation  of  submission 585 

462.  Ratification  of  submission 586 

463.  Specific  performance  of  agreement  to  submit 587 

464.  Effect  of  agreement  upon  right  to  sue 588 

465.  Who  may  be  arbitrators. 590 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    II.  XIX 

PA(iE. 

§  466.  Arbitrators  must  act  together 5!tl 

467.  Procedure 692 

468.  The  award   694 

469.  Effect  of  award 597 

470.  Enforcement  of  award 598 

471.  Impeaching  and  setting  aside  the  award 599 


VOLUME   II. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

APPEARANCE. 

472.  Definition — What  constitutes 603 

473.  Authority  to  appear 604 

474.  General  appearance 607 

475.  Effect  of  a  general  appearance 609 

476.  Special  appearance 612 

477.  Effect  of  special  appearance 613 

478.  Withdrawal  of  appearance 614 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

CONTINUANCE. 

479.  When  continuance  is  advisable 616 

480.  Bad  policy  to  ask  many  continuances 617 

481.  Continuance  discretionary  with  court 617 

482.  Causes  for  continuance 618 

483.  Time  for  making  application — Rules  of  court 621 

484.  Application — How^  made — Affidavits 621 

485.  Admissions  may  justify  denial  of  application 623 

486.  Conditions — Payment  of  costs 624 

487.  Error  in  refusing  continuance — How  saved  or  cured 625 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

CHANGE   OF     VENUE. 

488.  Causes  for 626 

489.  Who  may  have 628 

490.  Number  of  changes  allowed 629 

491.  Duty  of  court  to  grant 629 


XX  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 
§  492.   To  what  county 630 

493.  When  application  must  be  made  631 

494.  Rules  of  eourt  as  affecting  time  of  making  application 632 

495.  Excuses  for  not  making  application  in  time 633 

496.  The  application — Afiidavits 634 

497.  Notice  of  application  635 

498.  Objections — Waiver 636 

499.  Order  granting  change 637 

500.  Perfecting  the  change — Costs— Transcript 637 

501.  Effect  of  change — Jurisdiction 638 

502.  Change  of  judge 639 

603.   Saving  questions  for  appeal 641 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

IMPANELING  THE  JURY. 

504.  Right  to  jury  trial 642 

505.  Number  of  jurors 643 

506.  Waiver  of  right  to  jury 644 

507.  Right  to  impartial  jury 645 

508.  Qualifications  of  jurors 645 

509.  Selecting  the  jurors — Generally 646 

510.  Manner  of  questioning  jurors 647 

511.  Purpose  of  examination 648 

512.  Objects  to  be  kept  in  view 649 

513.  Peremptory  challenges — Right  to  be  carefully  exercised 650 

514.  Examination  to  discover  reason  for  peremptory  challenge 650 

515.  Prejudice — Examination  with  reference  to  particular  case 651 

516.  Challenging  the  array 652 

517.  Principal  grounds  of  challenge  for  cause 653 

518.  Disqualification  on  account  of  interest 653 

519.  Lack  of  statutory  qualifications. 655 

520.  Disqualification  because  of  relationship 655 

521.  Disqualification  because  of  personal  hostility  or  bias 656 

522.  Disqualification  because  of  pending  lawsuit 658 

523.  Disqualification  because  of  dependence  on  party 658 

524.  Disqualification  on  account  of  opinion 659 

525.  Trying  grounds  of  challenge 661 

526.  Examination  of  juror  on  voir  dire 662 

527.  Peremptory  challenges— Number 663 

528.  When  right  to  challenge  must  be  exercised 664 

529.  Waiver  of  objections  to  jurors 665 

530.  Grounds  of  challenge  must  be  specific 666 

531.  Excusing  jurors 667 

532.  Saving  questions  for  appeal 667 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II.  xxi 

CHAPTER    XX. 

THE  RIGHT  TO  OPEN  AND  CLOSE. 

PAGE. 

§633.  Importance  of  the  right  to  open  and  close 669 

534.  Its  advantages  and  disadvantages 670 

635.  When  defendant  sliould  assume  the  burden 671 

536.  Dangers  in  assuming  burden 673 

537.  Right  and  duty  correlative 674 

538.  Who  has  the  right  to  open  and  close— General  rule 675 

639.  When  the  rule  applies — Damages 675 

540.  Right  where  several  issues  or  defendants 676 

541.  How  defendant  may  acquire  the  right — Admissions 676 

542.  How  plaintiff  may  prevent  defendant  from  acquiring  the  right .  . .  .677 

543.  Effect  of  failure  to  offer  evidence — Waiver 678 

544.  Special  proceedings 678 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE    STATEMENT    OF   THE    CASE. 

645.  Importance  of  opening  statement 681 

546.  Of  what  it  should  consist 682 

547.  Its  leading  purpose 684 

548.  Anticipating  the  defense 685 

649.  Repetition 685 

650.  Arguing  too  soon 687 

551.  Perspicuity  and  clearness 687 

552.  How  to  secure  clearness 688 

653.  Virtue  of  plain  statement 688 

654.  Attention  of  jury  must  be  aroused 689 

555.  Suggestive  statement 690 

556.  Evidence  should  not  be  overstated 691 

657.  Presenting  a  tenable  theory 691 

658.  Keeping  statement  within  proper  limits— Discretion  of  court 692 

559.   Exceeding  proper  limits — Saving  and  curing  error 692 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

SEPARATING    AND    LIMITING    NUMBER    OF    WITNESSES. 

660.  When  advisable  to  ask  for  a  separation  of  witnesses 694 

661.  Discretion  of  court  to  order  separation 694 

562.  To  whom  the  order  applies 695 

663.  Effect  of  disobedience  of  order  by  witness 696 

564.  Right  to  limit  the  number  of  witnesses.. 697 


XXll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  565.   Constitutionality  and  effect  of  statutes  prescribing  number  of  wit- 
nesses   698 

566.    Limitation  must  be  reasonable — Right  of  parties  to  testify 698 

667.    Objections  and  exceptions — Waiver 699 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

DELIVERY  OF  THE  EVIDENCE. 

568.  Importance  of  good  impression  in  beginning 700 

569.  Orderly  arrangement  of  evidence 701 

570.  Natural  order  should  be  adopted 702 

571.  Attention  to  details 703 

572.  Discretion  as  to  order  of  introducing  evidence 704 

573.  Proper  order  of  introducing  evidence — Departure  from 704 

574.  Evidence  in  anticipation  of  defense 705 

575.  Evidence  in  rebuttal 705 

576.  Evidence  irrelevant  at  time  introduced  upon  promise  to  make 

relevant 706 

577.  Evidence  should  not  be  introduced  piecemeal 706 

578.  Re-opening  the  case 707 

579.  Keeping  incompetent  evidence  from  jury 707 

680.  Objections  should  be  made  only  to  harmful  evidence 708 

681.  Objections  should  be  supported 709 

582.  Written  objections 709 

583.  Objections  to  leading  questions 710 

584.  Objections  must  be  specific 711 

585.  Objection  where  question  is  proper  but  answer  incompetent 713 

586.  Objections  where  there  are  several  parties 713 

587.  Offer  of  evidence  after  objection 713 

588.  Trial  of  competency  of  witnesses — Preliminary  examination 715 

589.  Extent  and  method  of  preliminary  examination 716 

590.  Interposing  questions  to   determine  competency  of  evidence. .;..  .717 

591.  Exception  to  ruling  on  objection 718 

592.  Effect  of  irrelevant  evidence — Opening  door  for  adversary 719 

593.  Withdrawing  evidence 719 

594.  Striking  out  evidence 720 

595.  Quantity  of  evidence 722 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE    EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF. 

596.  The  oath  or  affirmation   723 

597.  Inspiring  witness  with  confidence 724 

598.  Introductory  questions 725 

599.  ^Manner  of  asking  questions 726 

600.  Witness  should  be  permitted  to  testify  in  his  own  way 726 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS — VOL.   II.  XXlll 

PAGE. 

§601.    Leave  to  ask  leading  (]iiestions 727 

602.  Calling  attention  to  omissions 728 

603.  Rebuking  a  witness 728 

604.  Errors  U)  be  avoided 729 

G05.    Repetition 730 

600.    Cross-examining  one's  own  witness 7.30 

607.  Fixing  dates 730 

608.  Witnesses  who  prove  too  much 732 

609.  Hostile  witnesses 733 

610.  Unfavorable  answer — How  to  avoid  its  effect 735 

611.  Questions  should  be  pertinent  and  relevant 735 

612.  Compound  questions 736 

613.  Leading  questions 736 

614.  Assuming  facts 737 

615.  Examination  should  be  confined  to  known  facts — Memoranda 737 

616.  Matters  of  opinion 738 

617.  Examination  of  experts 739 

618.  Examination  of  deaf  and  dumb  witnesses 741 

619.  Interpreters 741 

CHAPTER   XXV. 

THE    CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

620.  Object  of  cross-examination 743 

621.  Cross-examiner's  position 744 

622.  Actual  and  apparent  cross-examination 744 

623.  When  apparent  cross-examination  is  advisable 745 

624.  When  advisable  not  to  cross-examine 74(5 

625.  Purposeless  cross-examination 748 

626.  Timid  witness — How  to  cross-examine • 749 

627.  Bold  and  unscrupulous  witness— How  to  cross-examine 750 

628.  How  to  distinguish  untruthful  witness. 750 

629.  Course  where  testimony  is  false 752 

630.  Good  temper  must  be  preserved 752 

631.  Order  of  cross-examination    753 

632.  Coloring  testimony 755 

633.  Perils  of  cross-examination 756 

634.  Reluctant  witness — How  to  treat 758 

635.  Adverse  witness — How  to  cross-examine 758 

636.  Explanations— When  to  cross-examine  for 759 

637.  Detection  of  falsehood— Keeping  knowledge  from  witness 760 

638.  How  to  show  that  testimony  is  false 760 

639.  Cross-examination  as  to  time  and  place 761 

640.  Witness  who  does  not  remember — How  to  treat 762 

641.  Cross-examination  as  to  motive "63 

642.  Facts  should  be  separated  from  inferences 764 

643.  Interested  and  prejudiced  witnesses— How  to  treat 766 


Xxiv  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II. 

PAGE. 

§  644.  Assumption  that  witness  is  mistaken 766 

645.  Sources  of  error 767 

646.  Error  in  perception — Cross-examination  to  discover 767 

647.  Error  in  memory — Cross-examination  to  discover 769 

648.  Error  as  to  identity 770 

649.  Plypothesis — Cross-examiner  should  form 772 

650.  Danger  in  asking  too  many  questions 774 

651.  Expert  witnesses — Classes  of 775 

652.  Cross-examination  of  professional  experts 776 

653.  Duty  of  opposing  counsel 778 

654.  Leading  questions 779 

655.  Unfair  assumptions 779 

656.  Questions  calling  for  criminating  answer 780 

657.  Compound  questions 781 

658.  Extent  of  cross-examination— Latitude  allowed 782 

659.  Objections— When  to  be  made 784 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE    RE-EXAMINATION. 

660.  Object  of  re-examination 785 

661.  Clearing  away  obscurities 785 

662.  Restoring  confidence 786 

663.  Asking  for  explanations 787 

664.  Sustaining  corrupt  or  impeachable  witness 788 

665.  Bringing  out  entire  transaction 788 

666.  Treatment  of  favorable  new  matter  developed  on  cross-examination. 789 

667.  Explaining  discrepancies 790 

668.  Eliciting  new  matter. 796 

669.  Recalling  witnesses  for  re-examination 791 

670.  Objections — Use  and  abuse  of 792 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

IMPEACHMENT  OF  WITNESSES. 

671.  Impeachment  of  party's  own  witness — General  rule 794 

672.  Exceptions  to  the  rule 795 

673.  Right  to  impeach  witness  of  adverse  party 797 

674.  Impeachment  by  proof  of  contradictory  or  inconsistent  statements.  798 

675.  Laying  the  foundation  for  impeachment  by  contradictory  state- 

ments   800 

676.  Impeachment  by  evidence  of  character  or  reputation 802 

677.  Specific  acts  of  immorality 804 

678.  Laying  the  foundation  for  proof  of  bad  character 804 

679.  Cross-examination  of  impeaching  witness 805 

680.  Corroborating  and  sustaining  witnesses 806 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS — VOL.    II.  XXV 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

INSPECTION    AND     VIEW. 

PAGE. 

§  681.   Inspection  of  person— In  what  cases 808 

682.  Inspection  and  physical  examination  in  criminal  cases 809 

683.  Physical  examination  of  plaintiff  in  personal  injury  cases 809 

684.  Order  for  inspection  of  person— How  enforced 810 

685.  Inspection  of  chattels  811 

686.  Experiments  and  practical  tests 811 

687.  View  by  jury- Discretion  of  court 813 

688.  Object  of  the  view 313 

689.  Manner  of  proceeding— Irregularities 814 

690.  Photographs  and  diagrams 816 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE    ADDRESS    TO    THE    JURY. 

691.  Right  to  be  heard  in  argument 818 

692.  Number  of  speakers  and  order  and  time  of  argument 819 

6i)3.  To  what  argument  should  be  confined— Misconduct  of  counsel 819 

694.  Reading  from  books  in  argument 822 

695.  Misconduct  of  counsel— How  taken  advantage  of 823 

696.  Purpose  of  the  address 824 

697.  Argument  must  be  adapted  to  the  case 824 

698.  Earnestness  and  determination  are  essential 825 

699.  Diction — Ornament  and  embellishment 826 

700.  Making  the  cause  speak 829 

701.  Illustrative  anecdotes 829 

702.  Making  jurors  think  they  could  have  presented  the  case  equally  well.830 

703.  Advocates  in  the  Beecher-Tilton  case 831 

704.  Advocate  must  be  sincere  and  straightforward 831 

705.  Sacrifice  of  self 832 

706.  Influence  and  effect  of  vanity 832 

707.  Power  in  words 833 

708.  Examples  of  the  power  of  words 835 

709.  Art  of  putting  things 836 

710.  Tact  and  sagacity 838 

711.  Elements  and  virtues  of  the  art  of  putting  things 840 

712.  IMethod — What  determines 841 

713.  Facts  are  the  principal  materials  of  the  address 841 

714.  Arrangement  and  treatment  of  the  facts 842 

715.  Other  elements  of  the  address 843 

716.  Hume's  method  that  of  the  advocate 843 

717.  Jlere  assertions  of  no  value 844 

718.  Overstating  confidence  in  case 845 

719.  Danger  in  exaggeration — Arousing  hostility 845 


XXVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  720.    Argument  should  seem  intrinsically  strong 84G 

721.  Explanation— Nature  and  use  of 847 

722.  Explanation  in  civil  cases 850 

723.  Comparison  as  an  aid  to  explanation 850 

724.  Explanation  by  examples 851 

725.  Refutation  of  explanation 853 

726.  Examples  that  appear  to  explain,  but  do  not 856 

727.  Partial  explanation  given  as  complete 857 

728.  Description  as  an  element  of  the  aiddress 859 

729.  Narrative  part  of  the  address 862 

730.  ISIasters  of  narrative 864 

731.  Essentials  of  narrative 865 

732.  Effect  of  theory  on  narrative 866 

733.  Ultimate  purpose  of  narrative 868 

734.  Tracing  effect  to  cause 868 

735.  Rhetorical  invention 870 

736.  Use  of  circumstances 871 

737.  Groundwork  and  materials  of  invention 872 

738.  Molding  the  materials  into  form 875 

739.  Probability  is  essential 876 

740.  Appeal  to  experience 877 

741.  Natural  acts— Motives 880 

742.  Unnatural  acts— Reasons  for 880 

743.  Acts  apparently  unnatural  must  be  made  to  appear  natural 881 

744.  Probability  established  by  assigning  adequate  cause 882 

745.  Importance  of  probability 883 

746.  Order  of  narrating  facts 884 

747.  Dealing  with  the  parties  and  witnesses 886 

748.  Making  too  many  points 887 

749.  Repetition — How  far  an  element  of  strength 889 

750.  Extent  and  manner  of  refutation 890 

751.  Attacking  adverse  hypothesis  892 

752.  Use  of  analysis  in  refutation 893 

753.  AdTOcate  should  present  his  own  case  before  refuting  opponent's 

argument 893 

754.  Indirect  attack 894 

755.  Suggestive  method 895 

756.  Stratagem  of  attacking  few  points 896 

757.  Admissions — When  advisable 897 

758.  Commenting  on  testimony  and  witnesses 897 

759.  Conflict  in  testimony — How  treated 899 

760.  Mistakes  of  witnesses — How  caused  and  treated 900 

761.  Commenting  on  testimony  of  admissions 903 

762.  Course  where  witness  is  discredited   904 

763.  Showing  the  motive  of  corrupt  witness 905 

764.  Other  matters  to  be  shown  where  witness  has  sworn  falsely 908 

765.  Discussing  credibility  of  witnesses — Opportunity  to  know 908 

766.  Imperfect  recollection  of  witness 910 


TABLK    OF    CO  NT  K  NTS VOL.    II.  XXV 11 

PAGE. 

§  767.  Silence  and  omission  of  important  matters ^HJ 

768.  False  witnesses  deal  in  generalities 912 

769.  Behavior  of  witness  on  the  stand— Comments  on 912 

770.  Interest  of  witness 913 

771.  Meaning  and  use  of  the  maxim,  "false  in  one  false  in  all." 914 

772.  Use  of  incidental  matters  to  support  witness 916 

773.  Number  of  witnesses— Effect  of 916 

774.  Immaterial  inconsistencies 917 

775.  Relative  force  and  value  of  positive  and  negative  testimony 918 

776.  Commenting  on  inconsistencies  or  differences  in  statements  made 

at  different  times 920 

777.  Use  of  presumptions  921 

778.  Applying  the  law  to  the  facts 923 

779.  Consequences— Argument  from 924 

780.  Persuasion — Appeal  to  passions 926 

781.  Pathos— Use  and  abuse  of 926 

CHAPTER   XXX. 

AKGUMENT   OF   QUESTIONS   OF    LAW. 

782.  Importance  and  nature  of  argument 929 

783.  Preparation  of  argument 930 

784.  Matter  and  style  930 

785.  Elementary  principles 931 

786.  Strategy ^^^ 

787.  Superiority  of  oral  arguments 934 

788.  Prolixity  to  be  avoided 935 

789.  Reason  and  eloquence 936 

790.  Considering  the  nature  of  the  cause 938 

791.  Statement  of  facts 939 

792.  Statement  of  questions  involved 940 

793.  Method— Division  of  argument 940 

794.  Referring  to  authorities 942 

795.  Points  in  the  case 943 

796.  Discussion  of  judicial  decisions— Principle 944 

797.  Precedent — Stare  decisis 948 

798.  Attacking  judicial  decisions 951 

799.  Applying  legal  principle  to  particular  case 955 

800.  Use  and  abuse  of  maxims 956 

801.  Effect  of  harsh  operation  of  general  rule  in  particular  instance 958 

802.  Showing  case  to  be  within  exception  to  general  rule 960 

803.  Course  where  no  precedent  is  found 962 

804.  Extending  precedents  to  new  cases 963 

805.  Consideration  of  consequences 965 

806.  Discrimination— Denying  application  df  rule  to  particular  case 966 

807.  Arguing  for  the  application  of  the  rule 967 


XXViii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  11. 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

FALLACIES   AND    ARTIFICES. 

PAGE. 

§  808.   Fallacy— Definition 969 

809.  Weak  argument  should  be  avoided 970 

810.  How  to  expose  fallacies 972 

811.  Finding  the  fallacy 974 

812.  Principal  classes  of  fallacies 975 

813.  Illicit  assumption 975 

814.  Illicit  assumption  in  analogical  reasoning 977 

815.  Fallacy  of  examples 978 

816.  Fallacy  of  confusion 978 

817.  Incomplete  discrimination 979 

818.  Non  causa  pro  causa 983 

819.  Verbal  fallacies 984 

820.  Fallacy  of  equivocation 987 

821.  Begging  the  question — Vicious  circle 988 

822.  Fallacy  of  experience 991 

823.  Fallacia  accidentis 994 

824.  Incomplete  division 995 

825.  Dilemmas 997 

826.  Incomplete  enumeration 998 

827.  Incomplete  induction  or  imperfect  generalization 999 

828.  Non  sequitur 1001 

829.  Mistaking  the  point  in  dispute 1002 

830.  Objections  to  proposition  may  not  overturn  it 1003 

831.  Artifice  of  stating  some  facts  and  suppressing  others 1003 

832.  Suppressing  a  material  factor 1004 

833.  Artifice  of  covert  assumption 1005 

834.  Asserting  deduction  as  a  fact 1006 

835.  Artifice  of  referring  to  authorities  not  in  point 1006 

836.  Artifice  of  stating  objections  to  one's  own  argument 1007 

837.  Artifice  of  stating  propositions  of  adversary  and  then  refuting  them. 1007 

838.  Dissecting  and  refuting  probabilities  separately 1008 

839.  Artifice  of  repeating  same  argument  in  different  forms 1009 

840.  Shifting  ground 1009 

841.  Artifice  of  evasion 1010 

842.  Artifice  of  praising  opposing  counsel 1012 

843.  Mingling  false  propositions  with  true 1012 

844.  Artifice  of  insinuation 1013 

845.  Supposed  cases 1015 

846.  Insinuating  disavowals 1015 

847.  Unprofessional  tricks 1016 

848.  Forensic  tactics 1017 

849.  Consultation  with  jurors   1018 

850.  Fairly  stating  and  refuting  objections  in  advance 1018 

851.  Artifice  is  seldom  successful 1018 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II.  XXIX 

CHAPTER   XXXII. 

WITHDRAWING  THE  CASE  FROM  THE  JURY. 

PAGE. 

§  852.    Right  to  withdraw  the  case  from  the  jury   1020 

853.  Determining  the  hne  of  action   1022 

854.  Cases  that  may  be  taken  from  the  jury 1023 

855.  Demurrer  to  the  evidence 1024 

856.  Nature  of  a  demurrer  to  the  evidence 1025 

857.  Intendments  against  the  party  who  demurs 102G 

858.  What  tlie  denmrrer  admits 1027 

869.   What  the  demurrer  waives 1029 

860.  Party  upon  whom  the  burden  of  proof  rests  can  not  demur  to  the 

evidence 1029 

861.  Demurrer  withdraws  favorable  evidence 1030 

862.  Demurrer  where  presumption  makes  a  prima  facie  case 1030 

863.  What  the  demurrer  must  contain 1031 

864.  Waiver  of  the  right  to  demur •  .  •  1031 

865.  Effect  of  demurrer  on  the  right  to  subsequently  introduce  evidence  1032 

866.  Cross-examination  of  adverse  witness  not  a  waiver  of  the  right  to 

demur 1033 

867.  Withdrawal  of  the  demurrer 1034 

868.  Joinder  in  demurrer 1034 

869.  Assessment  of  damages 1034 

870.  Judgment  on  demurrer 1035 

871.  Saving  the  questions 1035 

872.  Risk  in  demurring  to  the  evidence 1036 

873.  Reasons  making  a  demurrer  expedient 1036 

874.  Reluctance  of  judges  to  disturb  verdicts 1037 

875.  Cautious   cross-examination   necessary  where  a  demurrer  to  the 

evidence  is  resolved  upon 1038 

876.  Compulsory  nonsuit 1039 

877.  Nonsuit  where  there  are  several  parties 1040 

878.  Test  for  determining  when  motion  for  nonsuit  should  be  sustained .  1041 

879.  When  motion  must  be  made 1042 

880.  Motion  must  specify  grounds 1042 

881.  Introducing  evidence  after  motion  for  nonsuit — Waiver 1043 

882.  Error  in  ruling  on  motion— How  saved  and  reviewed     1043 

883.  Voluntary  nonsuit  or  dismissal 1046 

884.  Time  of  taking  nonsuit 1048 

885.  Voluntary  nonsuit  not  appealable 1049 

886.  Withdrawing  a  juror 1050 

887.  Directing  a  verdict— Effect 1050 

888.  When  instruction  directing  verdict  must  be  requested— Waiver. .  .1051 

889.  When  verdict  will  be  directed 1053 

890.  When  not  directed 1055 


XXX  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

INSTRUCTING     THE     JURY.  PAGE, 

§  891.  Province  of  court  and  jury 1058 

892.  English  rule  in  Federal  courts 1059 

893.  AVhat  may  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  charge 1060 

894.  Written  instructions 1060 

895.  Preparing  the  instructions 1061 

896.  Requesting  instructions 1063 

897.  Compliance  with  request — Modification  of  instructions  requested .  1065 

898.  Essential  elements  and  limits  of  charge 1065 

899.  Instructions  must  be  pertinent 1066 

900.  Disputed  facts  should  not  be  assumed 1068 

901.  Instructions  as  to  weight  or  credibility  of  evidence 1069 

902.  Giving  undue  prominence  to  particular  evidence 1071 

903.  Cautionary  instructions 1072 

904.  Construing  instructions 1075 

905.  Withdrawing  and  correcting  instructions 1076 

906.  Additional  instructions — Recalling  jury 1077 

907.  Excepting  to  instructions 1078 

908.  When  erroneous  instruction  is  not  fatal 1081 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

SPECIAL    INTERROGATORIES. 

909.  Practice  and  object  of  submitting  interrogatories  to  jury 1083 

910.  When  advisable — Caution  to  be  observed 1084 

911.  When  a  matter  of  right — Discretion  of  court 1087 

912.  Form  and  manner  of  submitting. 1088 

913.  Must  be  requested  in  due  time 1088 

914.  Request  must  be  conditional  upon  return  of  general  verdict 1089 

915.  Interrogatories  must  be  material  and  call  for  facts 1090 

916.  When  refusal  is  not  available  error 1090 

917.  When  interrogatories  may  be  withdrawn 1091 

918.  Interrogatories  must  be  fully  and  fairly  answered 1092 

919.  Objections  to  interrogatories  1093 

920.  Remedy  where  answers  are  uncertain  or  evasive 1094 

921.  Answers  must  be  signed  by  foreman 1095 

922.  When  they  control  the  general  verdict 1095 

923.  Presumptions  and  intendments 1097 

924.  Motion  for  judgment  on  special  finding — New  trial 1097 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

SPECIAL    VERDICTS. 

925.  Definition  and  nature 1099 

926.  Right  to  special  verdict 1100 

927.  When  advisable 1100 


TABLE    OF    CONTKNTS VOL.    II,  XXXI 

PAGE. 

§  928.  When  not  advisable 1101 

929.  May  prevent  defeat  where  judge  is  unfavorable 1102 

930.  Preparation  of  special  verdict 1102 

931.  Special  verdict  must  find  the  ultimate  facts 1103 

932.  Construction — Presumptions  and  intendments 1106 

933.  What  it  must  find  to  support  judgment 1106 

934.  Motion  for  judgment— Exceptions 1107 

935.  Remedy  where  verdict  is  defective — Venire  de  novo — New  trial.. .  .1108 

CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

THE    VERDICT    AND    ITS    INCIDENTS. 

936.  Receiving  the  verdict 1110 

937.  Recording  the  verdict 1111 

938.  Polling  the  jury 1112 

939.  Form  of  the  verdict 1113 

940.  Construction  of  verdict 1115 

941.  Presumptions  in  aid  of  verdict 1115 

942.  Verdict  must  conform  to  issues 1116 

943.  Sealed  verdict 1116 

944.  Chance  verdict 1118 

945.  Compromise  or  quotient  verdict 1119 

946.  Objections  to  verdict 1120 

947.  Amending  the  verdict 1121 

948.  Discharge  of  jury — Coercion 1122 

949.  Attacking  and  sustaining  verdict 1124 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

TRIAL   AND    FINDINGS    BY    THE    COURT. 

950.  Legislative  power  to  provide  for  trial  by  the  court 1126 

951.  Trial  by  the  court 1127 

952.  Request  for  trial  by  the  court 1129 

953.  Request  where  case  partly  for  court  and  partly  for  the  jury 1130 

954.  Waiver  of  right  to  trial  in  a  particular  mode 1131 

955.  Conduct  of  trial  by  court 1132 

956.  Trial  by  court — Admission  of  incompetent  evidence 1132 

957.  Misconduct  of  the  court 1133 

958.  Case  agreed  or  special  case 1134 

959.  Statement  of  facts  in  a  case  agreed  or  special  case 1135 

960.  Statements  of  facts  in  special  case  or  agreed  case  different  from 

statements  of  evidence 1135 

961.  Agreed  case   1136 

962.  The  principal  elements  of  an  agreed  case 1137 

%3.    Fictitious  cases 1137 

964.   Jurisdiction  in  agreed  cases 1137 


XXXll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL  II. 

PAGE. 
§  965.   The  office  of  the  statement  of  facts  in  an  agreed  case 1138 

966.  Effect  of  making  and  submitting  an  agreed  case 1140 

967.  Judgment  in  an  agreed  case 1140 

968.  General  finding 1140 

969.  Special  finding  of  facts  and  conclusions  of  law 1141 

970.  Duty  of  the  court  to  make  special  finding 1142 

971.  Request  for  special  finding  1143 

972.  Time  at  which  special  finding  must  be  requested 1144 

973.  Construction  of  the  finding 1145 

974.  Requisites  of  tiie  statement  of  facts 1145 

975.  Silence  on  a  material  point — Effect  of 1146 

976.  The  conclusions  of  law 1147 

977.  Finding  outside  of  the  issues 1148 

978.  Defects  in  form  of  special  finding — Mode  of  objecting 1148 

979.  Challenging  the  finding  of  facts 1149 

980.  Objections  to  the  findings  by  motion  for  a  new  trial 1149 

981.  Exceptions  to  the  conclusions  of  law 1150 

982.  Right  to  change  special  finding  after  filing 1151 

983.  Remedy  where  the  judgment  does  not  conform  to  the  finding 1152 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

PROCEEDINGS    AFTER    VERDICT    OR    FINDING. 

984.  Proceedings  open  to  unsuccessful  party 1153 

985.  Venire  cle  novo 1154 

986.  Repleader 1155 

987.  Motion  for  new  trial — Nature  and  office  of 1156 

988.  Grounds  for  new  trial 1157 

989.  Who  may  move  for  new  trial 1161 

990.  When  motion  must  be  made — Time 1162 

991.  Form  and  contents  of  motion  for  new  trial 1164 

992.  Joint  and  several  motions 1167 

993.  Amending  motion  for  new  trial 1167 

994.  Rulingon  the  motion — Excepting  to  ruling  and  preparing  for  appeal. 1168 

995.  Waiver  of  right  to  move  for  new  trial 1169 

996.  Motion  in  arrest  of  judgment 1170 

997.  Motion  for  judgment  non  obstante 1171 

998.  Motion  for  judgment  on  special  findings 1173 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

JUDGMENTS    AND    DECREES. 

999.  Judgments  and  decrees  generally 1174 

1000.  Nature  of  a  judgment  1175 

1001.  Determination  of  the  issue 1176 

1002.  Splitting  demands 1177 


TA15LE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II.  XXXIU 

I-AOE. 

§  1003.  Final  judgments 1177 

1004.  Form  of  judgment  does  not  determine  its  character 1 180 

1005.  Final  judgments — Exceptional  cases — Independent  issues 1181 

100(5.  Interlocutory  judgments 1182 

1007.  Interlocutory  judgments — Illustrative  cases 1183 

1008.  Decrees 1185 

1009.  Form  and  contents  of  decrees 1186 

1010.  Kequis-ites  of  decrees 1186 

1011.  Classes  of  decrees 1186 

1012.  Interlocutory  decrees 1187 

1013.  Judgment  upon  issues  of  law  presented  by  demurrer 1 187 

1014.  Judgment  on  dilatorj'  pleas  or  answers 1188 

1015.  Entry  of  judgment — General  doctrine 1188 

1016.  Judgment  should  be  entered  in  book  designated  by  law 1189 

1017.  Time  of  entering  judgments 1190 

1018.  Form  and  contents  of  judgments 1191 

1019.  Consti-uction  of  judgments  and  entries 1192 

1020.  Verdict  or  finding  not  conclusive 1193 

1021.  Judgment  must  follow  the  verdict  or  finding 1193 

1022.  Joint  and  severel  judgments 1194 

1023.  Judgment  where  pleas  or  answers  in  bar  are  filed 1195 

1024.  Judgment  by  default 1196 

1025.  Default  admits  facts  pleaded,  but  not  their  legal  sufficiency 1196 

1026.  Jurisdiction  must  exist  to  authorize  judgment  by  default  1196 

1027.  What  constitutes  a  default 1197 

1028.  Time  to  plead— Computation  of 1198 

1029.  Default — Amended  pleadings — Rule  to  answer  or  reply 1198 

1030.  Effect  of  failure  to  formally  enter  default 1199 

1031.  Default  does  not  admit  amount  of  damages 1199 

1032.  Relief  from  judgments  by  default 1200 

1033.  Entries  mine  pro  tunc 1201 

1034.  Objections  to  judgments 1202 

1035.  Time  when  the  right  to  appeal  from  a  judgment  begins  to  run. . .  1202 

CHAPTER   XL. 

PREPARATION    FOR    APPEAL. 

1036.  Laying  the  foundation 1205 

1037.  Putting  questions  in  form  for  review  on  appeal 1205 

1038.  A  decision  must  be  secured  or  there  nmst  be  a  refusal  to  decide.   1207 

1039.  Demurrers — Aider  by  verdict 1208 

1040.  ^Motions 1210 

1041 .  Objections 1213 

1042.  Cases  constituting  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  objections  must  be 

made  in  trial  court 1214 

1043.  An  objection  must  not  be  too  broad 1215 

c 


XXXiv  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.    II. 

PAGE. 

§1044.  Objections  to  questions  to  witnesses  insufficient  where  question  is 

proper 1215 

1045.  Objections  must  be  interposed  by  the  proper  party 1216 

1046.  Exceptions — Nature  of 1217 

1047.  Necessity  for  exceptions 1218 

1048.  Time  of  taking  exceptions 1218 

1049.  Exceptions  can  not  be  taken  in  advance  of  the  ruling 1219 

1050.  Exceptions  must  immediately  follow  the  ruling  or  decision 1219 

1051.  Exceptions  must  be  addressed  to  specific  rulings 1220 

1052.  Exception  available  only  to  party  who  reserves  it 1220 

1053.  Exceptions  not  effective   unless  valid  as  to  all  who  join 1220 

1054.  Reducing  exceptions  to  writing 1221 

1055.  Bill  of  exceptions — Origin  and  nature  of 1221 

1056.  Bill  of  exceptions — Office  of 1222 

1057.  When  a  bill  of  exceptions  is  required — Generally 1223 

1058.  Requisites  of  bill — General  doctrine 1223 

1059.  Construction  of  the  bill 1225 

1060.  Concerning  the  rule  that  the  bill  brings  up  points  of  law 1225 

1061.  Stating  the  exceptions 1226 

1062.  Duty  of  settling  l)ills  of  exceptions  is  judicial.    1227 

1063.  Preparation  of  l)ill — Adoption  by  the  court 1227 

1064.  Form  of  the  bill 1227 

1065.  The  bill  imports  absolute  verity 1228 

1066.  Conflict  between  the  bill  and  other  record  entries 1228 

1067.  Recitals  of  the  clerk  not  sufficient 1228 

1068.  Stating  the  evidence 1229 

1069.  What  matters  should  be  brought  in  by  a  bill — Illustrative  cases.  .1230 

1070.  Making  available  error  manifest 1231 

1071.  Separate  bills 1232 

1072.  Collateral  motions  not  part  of  record  proper 1233 

1073.  Statements  and  exhibits  of  direct  motions 1233 

1074.  Rejected  pleadings  and  instruments 1233 

1075.  Bill  should  be  complete  before  it  is  signed 1234 

1076.  Making  written  instruments  part  of  the  bill  by  reference 1235 

1077.  Oral  testimony 1235 

1078.  Stenographer's  report  of  the  evidence 1236 

1079.  Allowance  of  bill— Time 1236 

1080.  Extension  of  time  to  file  bill 1237 

1081.  Order  extending  time — How  shown 1237 

1082.  Exhibiting  the  filing ". .  .1237 

1083.  When  considered  filed 1288 

1084.  Filing  essential 1238 

1085.  Authentication 1238 

1086.  By  whom  the  bill  should  be  signed 1239 

1087.  Compelling  judge  to  sign  bill — Mandamus 1241 

1088.  Amendment  of  bills  of  exception 1243 

1089.  Application  for  the  order  to  amend 1243 

1090.  The  order  directing  the  amendment 1244 


Table  of  Cases. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1  -602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244."] 


Aaron  v.  State,  37  Ala.  113,  646 

Abat  V.  Songy,  7  I\Iart.(La.)  274,  248 
Abbe  V.  Marr,  14  Cal.  210,  322,  1196 
Abbett  V.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

30  Minn.  482,  548 

Abbey  V.  Mace,  19  N.Y.  Supp.  375,  1081 
Abbev  Homestead  Assn.  v.  Wil- 

lard,  48Cal.614,  1043 

Abbot  V.  Abbot,  51  Me.  575,  34 

Abbott  V.  Al)bott,  51  Me.  575,  533 

Abbott  V.  Chaffee,  83  Mich.  256, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  216, 
Abbott  V.  Coburn,  28  Vt.  663,  S.  C. 

67  Am.  Dec.  735, 
Abbott  V.  Diitton,  44  Vt.  546,  S.  C. 

8  Am.  R.  394, 
Abbott  V.  Keith,  11  Vt.  525, 
Abbott  V.  L'Hommedieu,  10  W. 

Va.  677, 
Abbott  V.  Sheppard,  44  Mo.  273, 
Abbott  V.  Zeigler,  9  Ind.  511, 
Abdil  V.  Abdil,  26  Ind.  287,  443, 
Abel  V.  Opel,  24  Ind.  250, 
Abell  V.  Simpson,  49  Md.  318, 
Abels  V.  Glover,  15  La.  Ann.  247, 
Abendroth  v.  Van  Dolsen,  131  U. 

S.  66,  1177 

Abilene,  City  of,  v.  Hendricks,  36 

Kan.  196,  S.  C.  13  Pac.  R.  121,  1067 
Able  V.  Chandler,  12  Texas  88,  S. 

C.  62  Am.  Dec.  578,  1195 

Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  (U. 

S.)  506,  303 

Abies  V.  Miller,  12  Texas  109,  512 

Abney  v.  Kingsland,  10  Ala.  355, 

S   C.  44  Am.  Dec.  491,  706 

Abrahams  v.  :\rvers,  40  Md.  499,  384 
Abram  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Cr.  App. 

449,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  987,  235 

Abshire  v.  State,  52  Ind.  99,  1158 

Accident  Ins.  Co.  v  Crandall,  120 

U.  S.  527,  S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 

685,  1033, 1043 

Acer  V.  Hotchkiss,  97  N.  Y.  395,     353 


712 
314 

605 

586 

176 
463 
1183 
610 
399 
474 
397 


Acheson  v.  Sutliff,  18  Ohio  122,     1231 
542,  665,  668 
Achey  v.  State,  64  Ind.  56, 
Achorn  v.  Andrews  (Me.),  12  Atl. 

R.  793,  171 

Acklcn  V.  Hickman,  63  Ala.  494,  738 
Acker  v.  Acker,  81  N.  Y.  143,  381 

Acker  v.  White,  25  Wend.  614,  196 
Ackley's  Case,  4  Abb.  Pr.  R.  35,  203 
Ackley  v.  Dygert,  33  Barb.  176,  318 
Ackleyv.Finch,7Co\v.  (N.Y.)290,  591 
Acock  V.  Halsev,  90  Cal.  215,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  193,  1046 

A'Court  V.  Cross,  3  Bing.  329,  382 

Adam  v.  State  (Tex.),  20  S.W.  R. 

548,  1136 

Adams  v.  Abram,  38  Mich.  302,  438 
Adams  v.  Andross,  77  Cal.  483,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  852,  1230 

Adams  v.  Cameron  (Ala.),  10  So 

R.  506, 
Adams  v.  Cohoes,  53  Hun  260, 
Adams  v.  Conch,  1  Okla.  17,  S.  C 

26  Pac.  R.  1009, 
Adams  v.  Cowles,  95  Mo.  501,  S. 

C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  74, 

245,  275,  316,  328,  452 
Adams  v.  Crittenden,  17  Fed.  R. 

42, 
Adams  v.  Davis,  16  Ala.  748, 
Adams  v.  Gowan,  89  Ind.  358, 
Adams  v.  Great  North,  etc.,  Co 

H.  of  L.  Cases,  1891,  A.  C.  31, 
Adams  v.  Greenwich  Ins.  Co.,  70 

N.  Y.  166,  803,  806 

Adams  v.  Harrington,  114  Ind. 66,  322 
Adams  v.  Haskell,  7  Wis.  287,  196 
Adams  v.  Helm.  55  Mo.  468,  404 

Adams  v.  Hickman,  43  :\Io.  168,  1200 
Adams  v.  Higsins,  23  Fla.  13,  S. 

C.  1  So.  R.  321,  188 

Adams  v.  Holmes,  48  Ind.  299.  1089 
Adams  v.  Jeffries,  12  Ohio  253,  S. 

C.  40  Am.  Dec.  477,  316 


382 
411 

170 


491 
539 
226 

574 


(xxxv) 


XXXVl 


TABLK    OF    ()ASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  p] 
Adams  v.  Jones,  12  Peters  207,  413 
Adams  v.  Lorkwood,  30  Kan.  373,  1206 
Adams  v.  Main,  3  Ind.  App.  232, 

S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  792,  162 

Adams  v.  ^lissouri  Pacific  R.  R. 

Co.,  100  Mo.  555,  S.  C.  13  S.  W. 

R.  509,  534 

Adams  v.  Ohio  Falls  Co.,  131  Ind. 

375,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  57,  483 

Adams  v.  Olive,  57  Ala.  249,  346 

Adams  v.  Raigner,  69  Mo.  363,  512 
Adams  v.  ReQua,  22  Fla.  250,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  R.  191,  187,  191 

Adams  V. Robinson, 1  Pick.  (Mass.) 

461,  436 

Adams  v.  Ringo,  79  Kv.  211,  578 

Adams  v.  Russell,  85  111.  284,  512 

Adams  v.  Sage,  28  N.  Y.  103,  351 

Adams  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

N.Y.  328,  266 

Adams  v.  Secor,  6  Kan.  542,  1214 

Adams  v.  Staley,  2  Show.  61,  595 

Adams  v.  State,  28  Fla.  511,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  106,  783,  1069 

Adams  v.  State  (Tex.),  20  S.  W. 

R.  548,  1071 

Adams  v.  Town,  3  Cal.  247,  118 

Adams    v.    Wadleigh,     10    Gray 

(Mass.),  360,  514 

Adams  v.  Wheeler,  97  Mass.  67,  794 
Adams  v.  Whitcomb,  46  Vt.  708,  477 
Adams  v.  Wood,  51  Mich.  411,  394 
Adams  County  v.  Hunter,  78  la. 

328,  S.C.  43N.W.  R.  208,     110,1130 
Adams  Express  V.  Pollock,  12  Ohio 

St.  618,  1100 

Adams  Express  Co.  v.  St.  John, 

17  Ohio  St.  641,  441 

Adams,  etc., Co.  v. Cook,  16  Bradw. 

(Ill.)161,  538 

Adamson  v.  Rose,  30  Ind.  380,  1158 
Addington  v.Allen,  11  Wend.  374, 1209 
Addington  v.  Wilson,  5  Ind.  137,  138 
Addison  v.  State,  48  Ala.  478,  737, 1073 
Addleman  v.  Erwin,  6  Ind.  494,  1164 
Adicks  V.  Allison,  21  S.  Car.  245,  153 
Adkins  v.  Fry,  38  W.  Va.  545,  S. 

C.  18  S.  E.  R.  737,  1027 

Adkins  v.  Stephens,  38  W.Va.  557, 

S.  C.  18  S.  E.  R.  740,  1027 

Adler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hatchcock,  55 

Ark.  579,  S.C.  18  S.W.R.  1048,   1078 
Adler  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co., 

138  N.  Y.  173,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R. 

935,  1090 

Adm'r  of  Whitcomb  v.  Cook,  39 

Vt.  58.5,  433 

Advisory  Opinion  Matter  of  Im- 
peachment, 14  Fla.  289,  122 


.  l-(>02,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
^tna  Ins.  Co.  v.  Boon,  95  U.  S. 

117,  189 

^jtna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Deming,  123 

Ind.  384,  514 

yEtna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hesser,  77 

la.  381,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  297,  368 
^tna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ward,  140 

U.  S.  76,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

720,  1075 

African  Church  v.  Conover,  12  C. 

E.  Green,  157,  487 

Agate  V.  Morrison,  84  N.  Y.  672, 

179,  705 
Agens   V.  Agens  (N.  J.),  25  Atl. 

R.  707,  376 

Agricultural  Co.  v.  Barnard,  96  N. 

Y   531  1^8 

Agry  V.  Belts,  12  Me.  415,        165,  323 
Ah  Lee,  In  re,  6  Sawy.  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  410,  214 

Ah  Lee,  In  re,  5  Fed.  R.  899,  216 

Ahlhauser  v.  Butler,  50  Fed.  R. 

705,  608 

Aiken  v.  Stewart,  63  Pa.  St.  30,       792 
Aikin  v.  State,  35  Ala.  399,  629 

Akely  v.  Akely,  16  Vt.  450,  572 

Akers  v.  Demond,  103  Mass.  318,    514 
Akin  V.  Davis,  14  Kan.  143,  489 

Akridge  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

90  Ga.  232,  S.C.  16  S.E.R.  81,      1067 
Alabama  v.  Burr,  115  U.  S.  413,  S. 

C.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  81,  526 

Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burkett,  42 

Ala.  83,  226,  236,  739,  1241 

Alabama,  G.  S.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hill, 

90  Ala.  71,  S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  442,  810 
Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nichols,  109 

U.  S.  332,  185 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Sum- 
mers, 68  Miss.  566,  S.  C.  10  So. 

R.  63,  546 

Albee  v.  Hayden,  25  Minn.  267,     1134 
Albert  v.  Clarendon   Land,  etc., 

Co.  (N.  J.),  23  Atl.  R.  8,       608,  609 
Alberti  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

118  N.  Y.  77,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A. 

765,  816 

Albin  V.  State,  63  Ind.  598,  1073 

Albion,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Richmond, 

etc.,  Co.,  19  Nev.  225,  177,  1134 

Albion,  Town   of,  v.  Hetrick,  90 

Ind.  545,  1107 

Albrighe  v.  McTighe,  49  Fed.  R. 

817,  1167 

Albuquerque  v.  Zegler  (N.  M.),  27 

Pac.  R.  515,  484 

Alcorn  v.  Morgan,  77  Ind.  184,      1232 
Alderman  v.  Montcalm,  41  Mich. 

550,  180,  1159 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


XXX  Vll 


[^Epferencps  arc  to  Pnfirs,   To/.  /,  pp 
Alderson  v.  Marshall,  7  Mont.  288, 

S.  U.  Hi  I'ac.  K.  r)7(),  445 

Aldige  V.  Knox,  K)  La.  Ann.  180,  458 
Aldrich,  Appellant,  1  U»  Mass.  189,  224 
Aldrich  v.  Hawkins,  (i  lilackf.  125,  258 
Aldiicli  V.  Jessinian,  8  N.  II.  5](),  0(X) 
Aldrid^e  v.  Mardoff,  32  Tex.  204,  lltJ3 
Alexander   v.  Bennett,  tiO  N.  Y. 

204,  118,  lU),  138 

Alexander  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  41  Minn.  515,  8.  C.  43  N. 

W.  R.  481,  534 

Alexander    v.    Cunningluun,    111 

111.511,  592 

Alexander  v.  Esten,  1  Caines,152,  1210 
Alexander  v.  Fitzpatrick,  4  Port. 

(Ala.)  405,  1034 

Alexander  v.  Gill,  120  Ind.  485, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  525, 

12(),  133,  134,  165,  324 
Alexander  V.  Iliiinber,  8<i  Kv.5()5,  11()8 
Alexander  V.  Machan,  147  lf.S.72,  1220 
Alexander  v.  Penna.  Co.,  48  Ohio 

St.  623,  545 

Alexander  v.  Stewart,  23  Ark.  18, 

190,  1195 
Alexander  v.  Town  of  New  Castle, 

115  Ind.  51,  S.  C.  17  N.  E.  R. 

200,  984 

Alexandria  Canal  Co.  v.  Swann, 

5  How.  (U.  S.)  83,  581 
Alexandria,  Village  of,  v.  Stabler, 

4  C.  C.  A.  324,  S.  C.  50  Fed.  R. 

689,  1032,  1033 

Alfred  v.  Kankakee,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  92  Til.  609,  595 

Alhambra,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richard- 
son, 72  Cal.  598,  1103 
Allison,  In  re.  13  Col.  525,  S.  C. 

16  Am.  St.  R.  224,  145,  146 

Allard  v.  Snnth,  2  Mete.  297,  1119 
Allcorn  v.  Raffertv,4  J.J.  !Marsh. 

(Ky.)  220,  '  620 

Allegre  v.  ^larvland  Ins.  Co.,  14 

Am.  Dec.  296,  588 

Alleman  v.  Stepp,  52  la.  626,  797 

Allemania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Peck, 

133  111.  220,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R. 

538,  S.  C.  2  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R. 

6  Corp.  R.  438,  385 
Allen  V.  Allen.  80  Ala.  154,  253,  492 
Allen  V.  Bankston.  33  Ark.  740,  445 
Allen  V.  Berndt,  133  Ind.  355,  1231 
Allen  V.  Bradford.  3  Ala.  281,  191 
Allen  V.  Buchanan  (Ala.),  11  So. 

R.  777,  485,  486 

Allen  V.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  42  la. 

683,  493 

Allen  V.  Chadsey,  1  Ind.  399,  428 


.  7-/;02,  V„L  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
Allen  V.  Cheever,  61  N.  H.  32,        402 
Allen  V.  Collier,  70  Mo.  138,  S.  C. 

35  Am.  R.  416,  383 

Allen  V.  Dallas,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  3 

Wooils,  316,  496 

Allen  V.  Davison,  Hi  Ind.  416,  1088 
Allen  V.  De  Groodt,  98  Mo.  159,  S. 

C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  626,  361 

Allen  V.  DuHie,  43  Mich.  1,  545 

Allen  V.  Dunlai»  (Ore.),  33  Pac.  R. 

675,  485 

Allen  V.  Ferguson,  18  Wall.   (C. 

S.)  1,  1105 

Allen  V.  Galpin,  9  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

246,  586 

Allen  V.  Hanks,  136  U.  S.  300,  478 
Allen   V.    Hawlev,  63   Am.    Dec. 

198,  "  495 

Allen  V.  Lee,  6  Wis.  478,  613 

Allen  V.  Mandaville,26  Miss.  397,  499 
Allen  v.Miles,4IIarr.  (Del.)  234,  600 
Allen  V.  Mann,  1  Chip.  (Vt.)  94,  377 
Allen  V.  Pike,  3  Cush.  238,  411 

Allen  V.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  139  U. 

S.  658,  483 

Allen  V.  Nussbaum,  87  Ga.  470,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  635,  180 

Allen  V.  Ray,  96  Mo.  542,  S.  C.  10 

S.  W.  R.  153,  448 

Allen  V.  Skiff,  2  la.  433,  631 

Allen  V.  State,  79  Ala.  34,  1121 

Allen  V.  State,  74  Ind.  216,  1156 

Allen  V.  State,  85  Wis.  22,  S.  C.  54 

N.  W.  R.  999,  1122 

Allen  V.  State,  21   Ga.  217,  S.  C. 

68  Am.  Dec.  457,  715 

Allen  V.  State,  73  Am.  Dec.  763, 

801,  803,  804,  805 
Allen  V.  State,  54  Ind.  461,  643,  644 
Allen  V.  Strickland,  100  N.  Car. 

225,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  780,  412 

Allen  V.  Watson,   16  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  205,  586 

Allen  V.  Webster,  15  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  284,  382 

Alley  V.  Limbert,  35  111.  App.592, 

1230,  1233 
Alley  V.  Nott,  111  U.  S.  472,  1179 

Allev  V.  State,  76  Ind.  94,  668,  1228 
Allgbod  V.  Williams,  92  Ala.  551, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  722,  312 

Allie  V.  Schmitz,  17  AVis.  169,  245 

Allin  V.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Co.,  150 

Ma.ss.  560.  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  416,  306 
Ailing  V.  :\Iiinson,  2  Conn.  691,  582 
Allis  V.  Dav.  14  IMinn.  516,  201 

A  His  V.  Leonard,  ni^  X.  Y.  288,  1059 
Aliis  V.  Meadow  Springs,  etc.,  Co., 

67  Wis.  16,  S.  C.  29  N.W.R.543, 

632,  638 


XXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Heferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Allison  V.  Thomas.  72  Cal.  562,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  E.  89,  435 

Allo\vavv.Nashville,88Tenn.510, 

S.  C.'a  L.  R.  A.  123,  680 

Allsmiller    v.    Freutchenicht,   86 

Ky.  li)8,  S.  C.  5  S.  W.  R.  746, 

292,  443 
Allvn  V.  Boston  &  Albany  R.  R. 

Co.,  105  Mass.  77,  "  1054 

Alpers  V.  Hunt,  86  Cal.  78,  S.  C. 

21  Am.  St.  R.  17,  1044 

Ahecht  V.  Walker,  73  111.  69,  657 

Alston  V.  Ciav,  2  Havw.  (N.Car.) 

171,  '  "  198 

Alston  V.  Alston,  34  Ala.  15,  3()3 

Alt  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.   (S. 

Dak.),  57  N.  W.  R.  1126,  1080,  1165 
Altemns'  Estate,  32  La.  Ann.  364,  314 
Althen  v.  Tarbox,  48  Minn.  1,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.  R.  828,  1046 

Alton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northcott,  15 

111.  49,  408 

Amee  v.  Wilson,  22  Me.  116,  394 

American  Bank  Note  Co.  v.  N.  Y, 

Elevated  R.  R.  Co  ,  129  N.Y.  252,  372 
American  Co.  v.  Bradford,  27  Cal. 

360,  1088 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Middleton, 

80  N.Y.  408,  306 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spellman, 

90  111.  455,  29 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern, 

etc.,  34  Fed.  R.  803,  488 

American   Express   Co.  v.  Spell- 
man,  90  111.  455,  33 
American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Yearick,  78 

Ind.  202,  1219 

American  Mat.  Aid  Soc.  v.  Hel- 

burn,  85  Ky.  1,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St. 

R. 571,  527 

American   White   Bronze  Co.  v. 

Clark,  123  Ind.  230,  1163 

Ammerman    v.   Crosby,   26   Ind. 

451  1233 

Ames  V.  Boland,  1  Minn.  365,  255 

Ames  V.  Hager,  36  Fed.  R.  129,  303 
Ames  V.  Kansas,  111  U.  S.  449,  119 
Ames  V.  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  Co., 

21  Minn.  241,  1129 

Ames  V.  Port  Huron,  etc.,  Co.,  11 

Mich.  139,  136 

Ames  V.  The  Port  Huron,  etc.,  Co., 

11  Mich.  149,  224 

Ames  V.  W^eV)bers,  10  AVend.  (N. 

Y.)  575,  624 

Ames  V.  Winsor,  19  Pick.  (Mass.) 

247,  613 

Ames  Iron  Works  v.  Warren,  76 

Ind.  512,  S.  C.  40  Am.  R.  258,      302 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Amidon  v.  Gaff,  24  Ind.  128,  1096 

Amidon  v.  Hosley,  54  Vt.  225,  804 
Amis  V.  Myers,  i6  How.  (U.  S.) 

492,  262,  345,  1130 

Amonett   v.    Montague,    63    Mo. 

201,  1080,  1220 

Amory  v.  Amory,  26  Wis.  152,  1180 
Amory  v.  Amory,  95  U.  S.  186,  319 
Amory  v.  Reilly,  9  Ind.  490.  184 

Amos,  Ex  pai'te,  51  Ala.  57,  226 

Amos   V.    Sinnot,  4   Scam.    (111.) 

440,  392 

Amos  V.  State,  96  Ala.  120,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  424,  646 

Amrick  v.  Brubaker,  101  Mo.  473, 

S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  627,  411 

Amy  V.  City  of    Watertown,  130 

U.    S.  320,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

537,  378,  379 

Amy  V.  Watertown,  130  U.  S.  301,     , 

S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  530,  440 

Anacosta  Tribe    v.   Murback,    13 

Md.  91,  588 

Andenried  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 

Co.,  68  Pa.  St.  370,  480 

Anderson  v.  Ames,  6  la.  486,  1224, 1232 
Anderson  v.  Anderson,  129  Ind. 

573,  S.  C.  28  Am.  St.  Rep.  211,  59 
Anderson  v.  Anderson,  42  Vt.  350,  312 
Anderson   v.    Anderson,  65  Ind. 

196,  599 

Anderson  v.  Arnette,  27  La.  Ann. 

237,  442 

Anderson  v.  Brown,  9  Mo.  646,  428 
Anderson  v.  Brown,  16  Tex.  554,  430 
Anderson   v.    Burchett,  48   Kan. 

781,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  174,  603 

Anderson   v.    Burchett,   48   Kan. 

153,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  315,  601 

Anderson  v.  Caldwell,  91  Ind.  451, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  R.  613.  643,  1129 

Anderson    v.    Claman,    123    Ind. 

471,  144,  164 

Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  204,  136 
Anderson  v.  Goff,  72  Cal.  65,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  R.  34,  446,  453 

T^nderson  v.  Gray,  134  111.  550,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  843,  154,  320 

Anderson  v.  Hancock,  61  Cal.  88,  34 
Anderson  v.  Ilawhe,  115  111.  33,  428 
Anderson  v.  Keller,  67  Ga.  58,  553 
Anderson  v.Layton,3  Bush.(Ky.) 

87,  '       381 

Anderson  v.  Levely,  58  Md.  192,  298 
Anderson  v.  McPike,  41  Mo.  App. 

328,  1088 

Ander.son  v.  Meredith  (Ky.),9  S. 

W.  R.  407,  1163 

Anderson  v.  Miller,  4  Blackf.  417,  428 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XXXIX 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  /,  pp 
Anderson  v.  Mitchell, 58  In(1.592,  368 
Anderson  v.  Morth,  etc.,  Co.,  21 

Ore.  281,  S.C.  28  I'ac.  R.  o,   546, 1056 
Anderson  v.  Oliver,  138  Pa. St.  156, 

S.  C.  20  Atl.  K.  !»81,  1044 

Anderson  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

54  N.  Y.  334,  719,  721 

Anderson  v.  Sjjence,  72  Ind.  315,  89 
Anderson  v.  State,  34  Ark.  257,  798 
Anderson  v.  State,  5  Ark.  444,  646 
Anderson  v.  State,  28  Ind.  22,  630 
Anderson  v.  State,  104  Ind.  467, 

S.  C.  4  N.  E.  R.  ()3,       692,  821,  1068 
Anderson  v.  Washabaugh,  43  Pa. 

St.  115,  363 

Anderson  v.  AVatt,  138  U.  S.  694,  312 
Anderson  Bridge  Co. v.  Applegate, 

13  Ind.  339,  414,  506 

Anderson  Co.  Conmirs.  v.  Beal, 

113  U.  S.  227,  1051 

Aneals  v.  People,  134  111.  401,  799,  802 
Anding  v.  Lew,  60  Miss.  487,  597 

Andis  V.  Richie.  120  Ind.  138,  1167 
Andrewes  v.  Elliott,  6  E.  &  B.  338,  262 
Andrews  v.  Avory,  14  Gratt.  229, 

S.  C.  73  Am.  Dec.  355,  314 

Andrews  v.  Beck.  23  Tex .455,  217,  218 
Andrews  v.  Bernliardi,  87  111.365,  451 
Andrews  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co. 

(Ala.),  12  So.  R.  432,  557 

Andrews  v.  Frye,  104  Mass.  234,  392 
Andrews  v.  Hammond,  8  Blackf. 

540,  1025, 1035 

Andrews  v.  Kev,  77  Tex.  35,  S.  C. 

13  S.  W.  R.  640,  1132 

Andrews  v.  Lembeck,  46  Ohio  St. 

38,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  483,  457 

Andrews  v.  Linton,  2  Ld.  Ray- 
mond 884,  "     232 
Andrews  v.  iNIcLeod,  66  Miss.348,   478 
Andrews  v.  Mundy,  36  AV.  Va.  22, 

S.  C.  14S.  E.  R.414,  611,1091 

Andrews  v.  Powell,  27  Ind.  303, 

474,  487 
Andrews  v.  Pratt,  44  Cal.  309,  202 
Andrews  v.  School  Dist.,  35  Minn. 

70,  S.  C.  27  N.  W.  R.  303,  1180 

Andrews  v.  Smithwick,   34  Tex. 

544,  367 

Andrews   v.  Wheaton,  23   Conn. 

112,  115,248,454 

Andrews  v.  Youmans,  82  Wis.  81, 

S.  C.  52  N.  AV.  Rep.  23,  813 

Androvette  v.  Bowne,  4  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  440,  .  487,  488 

Ansel  V.  Smith.  9  Yes.  Jr.  335.        196 
A ngel  1  V .  A  n ffcl  1 .  1 4  R .  1 .  541 .    1 28,  444 
Angell  V.  Rol)bins,4  R.  1.493.  165,  .323 
Angell  V.  Steere,  16  R.  I.  200,  S. 
C.  14  Atl.  R.  81,  214 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1 244. '\ 
Angle  V.  Bilby,  25  Neb.  595,  S.  C. 

41  N.  W.  R.  397,  551 

Angle  V.  Speer,  66  Ind.  488,  190 

Anglo-Am.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cannon, 

31  Eed.  R.  313,  414,  503,  505 

Ankeny  v.  Clark,  148  U.  S.  345, 

S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  617,  1208 

Anness  V.  Providence,  13  R.  L  17,  297 
Annis  v.  People,  13  Mich.  511,  805 
Anonvnions,  89  Ala.  291,  S.  C.  7 

L.  R.  A.  425,  808,  810 

Anonymous,  35  Ala.  226,  808,  810 

Anonymous,  59  N.  Y.  313,  177 

Anonymous,  1  (ial.  22,  278 

Ansley  v.  Robinson,  16  Ala.  793,  1179 
Anson  v.  Dwight,  18  la.  241,  658 

Anthonvv.  P.ovd,  15  R.  1.495,  567,570 
Anthony  v.  Diinlap,  8  Cal.  26,  300 
Anthony  v..Jones,39  Kan.  529,  800,  801 
Anthony  v.  Kasey,  83  Va.  338,  S. 

C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  277,  129,  340 

Anthony  v.  Smith,  4  Bos.  503,  697 
Anthony  v.  Sturgis,  86  Ind.  479,  484 
Anthonv  v.  Tavlor,  68  Tex.  403, 

S.  C.  4  S.  W.R.  531,  1190 

Antbony  v.  Wheeler,  130  111.  128, 

S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R.  281,  1051 

Apel  V.  Kelsev,  52  Ark.  341,  S.  C. 

20  Am.  St.  R.  183, 
Appeal  of  Backus,  58  Pa.  St.  186, 
Appeal  of  Baldwin,  44  Conn.  37, 
Appeal  of  Barclay,  64  Pa.  St.  69, 
Appeal  of  Bentlev,  99  Pa.  St.  504,  385 
Appeal  of  Bridgbam,  82  Me.  323,  513 
Appeal  of  Briggs,  93  Pa.  St.  485,  386 
Appeal  of  Clark,  62  Pa.  St.  447,  201 
Apjieal  of  Culver,  48  Conn.  165, 
Appeal  of  Dicks,  106  Pa.  St.  589, 
Appeal  of  Finkbone,  86  Pa.   St. 

368, 
Appeal  of  Gesell,  84  Pa.  St.  238, 
Appeal  of  Gibson,  154  IMass.  378, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  296,  294 

Appeal  of  Gilroy,  100  Pa.  St.  5, 

486,  489 
Appeal  of   Hartranft,  85  Pa.  St. 

433,  170,  251 

Appeal  of  Hays,  123  Pa.  St.  110, 

S.  C.  1«)  Atl."R.  300,  305 

Appeal  of  Hecartv,  75  Pa.  St.  503,  263 
Appeal  of  Heils.  40  Pa.  St.  453,  S. 

C.  80  Am.  Dec.  590,  1190 

Appeal  of  Kirk,  78  Pa.  St.  243,  S. 

C;.  30  Am.  R.  357,  207 

Appeal  of  I. ox.  97  Pa.  St.  289,  128 

Ajipeal    of    Mahorning  Bank,  32 

Pa.  St.  158.  1175 

Appeal  of  Mannig,82  Pa.  St.  373,  350 
Api)eal  of  Morcan.  llOPa.  St.  271, 
S.  C.  4  Atl.  K.  506,  188,  599 


128 
201 
822 
382 


314 
337 

360 
1179 


xl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferejices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  /,  pp 
Appeal  of  Moss,  83  Pa.  St.  264,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  R.  104,  955 

Appeal  of  Murray,  101  Pa.  St.  421,  520 
Appeal  of  Musselmaii,  65  Pa.  St. 

480,  128 

Appeal  of  Norris,  71  Pa.  St.  106,  363 
Appeal  of  Olmstead,  43  Conn.  110,  314 
Appeal  of  Palairet,67  Pa.  St.  479, 

S.  C.5  Am.  R.  450,  97 

Appeal  of  Phillip,  68  Pa.  St.  130,  201 
Appeal  of  Ridg^vav,  15  Pa.  St.  177, 

S.  C.  53  Am.  Dec.  586,  1190 

Appeal  of  Smith,  52  Mich.  415,  550 
Appeal  of  Sproull,  71  Pa.  St.  137,  201 
Appeal  of  Zerfass,  135  Pa.  St.  522, 

S.  C.  19  Atl.  1056,  287 

Appel  V.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

Ill  N.  Y.  550,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R. 

93,  549,  550 

Appleton  V.  Ames,  150  Mass.  34, 

S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  69,  411 

Appleton  V.  Barrett,  29  Wis.  221,  396 
Appleton  V.  Donaldson,  3  Pa.  St. 

381,  401 

Application  of  Judges,  In  re,  64 

Pa.  St.  33,  232,  234 

Apthorp  V.  Comstock,  2  Paige  Ch. 

482,  1128 

Arambula  V.  Sullivan,  80  Tex.  615, 

S.  C.  16S.W.  R.  436,  1234 

Arapahoe  Village   v.    Alhee,    24 

Neb.  242,  S.O.  8  Am.  St.  R.  202,  366 
ArVjucklev.  Bowman,  6  Iowa  70,  1195 
Archer  v.  Long,  36  So.  Car.  602, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  24,  1135 

Archer  v.  Mosse,  2  Vern.  8,  274 

Archer  v.  State,  106  Ind.  426,  308 

Archer  v.  Williamson,  2  Har.  & 

G.  (Md.)  62,  596 

Arctic  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Austin,  69 

N.  Y.  470,  S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  221,  537 
Ard  V.  State,  114  Ind.  542,  148,  604 
Arden  v.  Arden,  1  Johns.  Ch.314,  303 
Arev  V.  De  Loriea,  55  Fed.  R.  323,  822 
Argent  v.  Darrell,  2  Salk.  648,  655 
Argo  V.  Barthand,  80  Ind.  63,  202,  324 
Argotsinger  v.  Vines,  82  N.Y.  308,  551 
Argvle  V.  Dwinel,  29  Me.  29,  467 

Arizona  v.  Mix,  1  Ariz.  52,  258 

Arkansas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canman,  52 

Ark.  517,  S.  C.  13  S.W.  R.  280,  1089 
Armaoost  v.  Lindlev,  116  Ind. 295,  365 
Armistead  v.  Philpot,  1  Doug.231,  198 
Armstrong  v.  Burrows,  6  Watts. 

(Pa.)  266,  5.38 

Armstrongv.  Clark,  17  Ohio 495,  1224 
Armstrong  v.  Easton,  1  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  66,  436 

Armstrong  v.  Ettlesohn,  36  Fed. 

R.  209,  303 


.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  GOS-1244.1 
Armstrongv.  Keith, 3  J.  J.  Marsh. 

153,  1160 

Armstrong  v.  Levan,  109  Pa.  St. 

177,  383 

Armstrong  v.  Marshall,  4  Dowl. 

593,  580 

Armstrong  v.  Masten,  11  Johns. 

189,  574 

Armstrong  v.  Mock,  17  111.  166,  1236 
Ai'mstrong  v.  Sanford,7  Minn.  49,  48S 
Armstrong  v.  Stone,  9  Gratt.102,  290 
Arnault  v.  St.  Julien,  21  La.  Ann. 

630,  438 

Arndt  v.  Griggs,  135  U.  S.  316,  S. 

C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  557,  271,  275,  444 
Arneson  v.  Spawn  (S.  Dak.),  49 

N.  W.  R.  1006,  529 

Arnett  v.  Bailey,  60  Ala.  435,  450 

Arnett  v.  Finnev,  41  N.J.Eq.  147,  376 
Arnold  v.  Angell,  62  N.Y.  508,  1148 
Arnold  v.  Arnold,  62  Ga.  627,  262 

Arnold  v.  Blabon,  147  Pa.  St.  372, 

S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  575,  363 

Arnold  v.  Chapman,  13  R.  1. 586,  423 
Arnold  v.  Commonwealth,  80  Ky. 

300,  S.  C.  44  Am.  R.  480,  137 

Arnold   v.  Linaweaver,  3   Head. 

(Tenn.)  51,  475 

Arnold  v.  Norton,  42  Ind.  248,  236 
Arnold  v.  Palmer,  23  Mo.  411,  1197 
Arnold  v.  Slaughter,  30  W.  Va. 

589,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  250,  200 
Arnold  v.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  435,  661 
Arnold  v.  United  States,  9  Cranch 

104,  360,  379 

Arnot  v.  McClure,  4  Denio  41,  1225 
Arras,  Ex  parte,  78  Cal.  304,  S.  C. 

20  Pac.  R.  683, 
Arrington   v.    Arrineton,    102  N. 

Car.  491,  S.  C.  9S.'"E.  R.  200,  287 
Arroyo     Ditch    Co.    v.    Superior 

Court,  92  Cal.  47,  S.  C.  27  Am. 

St  R  91  137 

Arthur  V.  I'sreal,  15  Col.  147,  S.  C. 

22  Am.  St.  R.  381,  344 

Arthur  v.  Roberts,  60  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  580,  538 

Arthur  v.  Wallace,  8  Kan.  267,  1094 
Arthurs  v.  Hart,  17  How.  6,  1133 

Artisans'  Bank   v.  Treadwell,  34 

Barb.  553,  196 

Artman  v.  West  Point,  etc.,  Co., 

16  Neb.  572,  1182 

Asay  V.  llav,  89  Pa.  St.  77,  706 

Asbury  v.  Fair,  111  N.  Car.  251,  1150 
Asbury  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Warren, 

66   Me.   523,   S.   C.  22   Am.  R. 

590,  661 
Ashby   V.  Bates,   15  Mees  &  W. 

589,  669 


TAP.Ll';    OF    CASKS. 


xli 


[Itcferences  are  Id  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Aslieroft  v.  Bertles,  H  T.  R.  f)o2,      393 
Ashley    v.  Cunningham,  10  Ark. 

1()8,  500 

Ashley  v.  Laird,  14  Iml.  222,  1191 

Ashman  v.  Flint  &  P.  M.   R.  R. 

Co.,  90  Mich.  507,  S.  C.  51  N.W. 

R.  ()45,  547 

Ashmead    v.  Reynolds,  134   Ind. 

139,  S.  C.  33  N'.  E.  R.  703,  1205 

Ashton  V.  City  of  Rociiester,  133 

N.  Y.  187,  S.  C.  2S  Am.  St.  R. 

019,  1147 

Ashton  V.  Dashawav  .Association, 

84Cal.01.  ■  394 

Ashton    V.  State,  31  Texas  Crim. 

App.  482,  S.  C;.  21  S.  AV.  R.  47,  601 
Asiiton  v.Tonhey,  131  Mass.  20,  1115 
Ashworth  v.  Kittridee,  12  Cush. 

193,  ""  707 

Ashwortli    V.    Kittridge,   59    Am. 

Dec.  180,  822 

Askew  V.  Hooper,  28  Ala.  634,        376 
Askew   V.  Kennedy,  1   Bailv  (S. 

Car.)  40,  '  '  579 

Asi)inwall  v.  Sabin,  22  Neb.  73,  S. 

C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  258,  328 

Assessors   v.   Osbornes,   9   Wall. 

567,  338 

Astley  V.  Capron,  89  Ind.  167,       1068 
Aszman  v.  State,  123  Ind.  347,  S. 

C.  8  L.  R.  A.  33,  1073 

Atchison  v.  Rose,  43  Kan.  605,        783 
Atchison  v.  State,  13  Lea  (Tenn.) 

275,  1071 

Atcliison,    etc.,    Co.    v.   Feehan, 

(111.),  30  N.  E.  R.  1036,  919 

Atchison,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Ferry,  28 

Kan.  680,  1142 

Atchison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35 

Kan.  236,  488 

Atchison,  City  of,  v.  Jansen,  21 

Kan.  560,  1060 

Atchison,    etc.,  Co.   v.    Long,  46 

Kan.  701,  478 

Atchison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wagner,  19 

Kan.  335,  1235 

Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Cone,  15  Pac.  R.  499,  S.  C.  37 

Kan.  567,  1092 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Frank- 
lin, 23  Kan.  74,  607 
Atchison   it   Neb.    R.    R.   Co.   v. 

Loree,  4  Neb.  446,  1051 

Atchison,etc.,R.R.Co.v.Plunkett, 

25  Kan.  188,  1088,1090 

Atchison,  Topeka,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 

V.  Thnl,  29  Kan.  466,  S.  C.  44 

Am.  R.  059,  810 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Thnl. 

32  Kan.  255,  S.C.  49  Am.  R.  484,  1070 


l-r;OL>,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00.3-1244.'] 
Men  V.  Brown,  14  111.  App.  451,   1194 
Athens   Mfg.   Co.   v.   Rucker,   80 

(la.  291,  370 

Atherton   v.    Williams,     19    Ind. 

105,  360 

Atkinson  v.  Bradford,  etc.,  Soc, 

L.  R.  25  Q.  B.  Div.  377,  360 

Atkinson  v.  Daily,  107  Ind.  117, 

5H4,  1064 
Atkinson  v.  Railroad,  81  Mo.  50,  191 
Atkinson  v.  Tavlor,  2  Wils.  1 17,  432 
Atkins  V.  Atkins,  9  Neb.  191,  445,446 
Atkins  V.  Kinnan,  20  Wend.  241, 

S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  534,  267 

Atkins  V.   Wabash,  etc.,  Co.,  29 

Fed.  R.  101,  194,304 

Atkisson  v.  Martin,  39  Ind.  242,    1202 
Atlantic;  Bank  v.  Harris,  118  Mass. 

147,  367 

Atlantic,   etc.,    Co.  v.    Maryland 

Coal  Co.,  64  Md.  302,  639 

Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  v.  McLoon,  48 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  27,  463 

Atlanta  R.  R.  v.  Johnson,  66  Ga. 

259,  919 

Atlas  Mining  Co.  v.  Johnston,  23 

Mich.  37,  667 

Atlas   Hank  v.  Nahant  Bank,  23 

Pick.  480,  467 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Blossom,  1  Wis. 

277,  256 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Cambridge  Gas 

Co.,  4"Ch.  App.  Cases,  71,  482 

Attorney    Gen.    v.    Citv   of  Eau 

Claire,  37  Wis.  400,     '  256 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Delaware,  etc., 

Co.,  27  N.  J.Eq.  631,  482 

Attorney  Gen.  y.  Fadden,  1  Price 

403,    ■  808 

Attorney   Gen.  v.    Great    North, 

etc.,  Co.,  4  De  Ge.  &  S.  75,  482 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Haberdasher's 

Society,  2  Jur.  915,  498 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Hunter,  1  Dev. 

Eq.  (N.  C.)  12,  482 

Attornej'  Gen.   v.    Lum,    2   AVis. 

507,  633 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Purmort,  5  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  020.  376 

Attorney  (ien.  v.  Silleni,  10  H.  L. 

Cases.'  704,  296 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Steward,  21  N. 

J.  E(i.  340,  487 

Attorney  Gen.  v.  Tarr,  148  ^lass. 

309,  S'.  C.  2  Lawv.  R.  Anno.  87, 

19  N.  E.  R.  358,'  392 

Attorney  Gen.  \.  The  Railroads, 

35  AA'i's.  425,  482 

Attwnod  y.  Fricot,   17  Cal.  37,  S. 

C.  70  Am.  Dec.  567,  508,  1232 


xlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Attrill  V.  Rockawav  Beach  Imp.  I 

Co.,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  376,  498 

Atwood  V.  Cobb,  16  Pick.  (Mass.) 

227,  S.  C.  26  Am.  Dec.  657,  502 

Atwood  V.  Frost,  51  Mich.  360,  S. 

C.  16  N.  W.  R.  685,  341 

Atwood  V.  Welton,  7  Conn.  66,  796 
Atwood  V.  Welton,  57  Conn.  514, 

S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  322,  527,  1146 

Aubel  V.  Ealer.  2  Binn.  582,  602 

Auchampaugh  v.  Schmidt,  77  la. 

13,  519 

Auditor  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.,  6 

Kan.  500,  123,  212 

Aulifmordt  v.   Hedden,  137  U.  S. 

310,  1129 

Angus  V.  Foster,  42  111.  App.  19,  1082 
Augusta  Rv.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  89 

Ga.  653,  S.  C.  18  S.  £.  R.  203, 

1212,  1217 
Augusta,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Randall,  85 

Ga.  297,  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R.  706,  823 
Augusta  &  S.   R.  Co.  v.  Randall, 

79Ga.  304,  S.C.4S.  E.  R.  674,  1067 
Augusta  Savings  Bank  v.  Stelling, 

31  So.  Car.  360,  444 

Augur  Steel,  etc.,  Co  v.  Whittier, 

117  Mass.  451,  507 

Aulger  V.  Clay,  109  111.  487,  402 

Auitman   v.    Falkum,    47    Minn. 

414,  S.  C.  50  N.W.  R.  471,  546,  669 
Auitman  v.  McLean,  27  la.  129,  327 
Auitman,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Shelton, 

(Ia.),57  N.  W.  R.  857,  1090 

Auitman  v.   Steinan,  8  Nel).  109, 

333,  454,  612,  613 
Auitman  M.  &  Co.   v.  Timm,  93 

Ind.  158,  31 

Aurora  v.  Bitner,  100  Ind.  396,  549 
Aurora  v.  Cobb,  21  Ind.  492,  677 

Austin  V.  Bodley,  4.  T.  B.   Mon. 

434,  280 

Austin  V.  Bostwick,  9  Conn.  496,  382 
Austin  V.  Cameron,  83  Tex.  351, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  4.37,  310 

Austin    V.    Charlestown,   8   i\Iet. 

(Mass.)  196,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec. 

497,  341 

Austin  V.  Cox,  60  Ga.  520,  653 

Austin  V.  p:arhart,  88  Ind.  182,  1108 
Austin  V.  Jordan,  5  Texas  130,  435 
Austin  V.  People,  102  III.  261,  820 

Austin  V.  Ricker,  61  N.  H.  97,  556 
Austin  V.   Rutland  R.  R.  Co.,  45 

Vt.  215,  372 

Austin  V.  Snow's  Lessee,  2  Dall. 

157,  572 

Austin  V.  Soule,  36  Vt.  645,  453 

Austin  V.  Townes,  10  Tex.  24,  1049 
Aveline's  Est.,  53  Cal.  259,  1161 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
A  vera  v.  Tool,  74  Ga.  398,  1122 

Averell  v.  Perrott,  74  Mich.  296, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  929,  337 

Averhill  v.  Tucker,  2  Cranch  C. 

C.  544,  471 

Avery  v.  demons,  18  Conn.  306,  558 
Avery  v.  Foley,  4  Hun  415,  1146 

Avery  v.  Slack,  17  Wend.  (X.  Y.) 

85,  612 

Avery  v.  Scott,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  811,  589 
Avinger  v.  South  Car.  Ry.  Co.,  29 

S.  Car.  265,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R. 

716,  1041 

Awde  V.  Dixon,  6  Exch.  869,  532 

Aycrigg's  Exrs.  v.  N.Y.  &E.  R.  R. 

Co.,  30  N.  J.  L.  460,  1041 

Aydelotte  v.  Brittain,  29  Kan.  98,  191 
Ayer  v.  Brown,  77  Me.  195,  471 

Ayer  v.  W^eeks,  65  N.  H.  248,  S. 

C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  37,  312 

Avers  v.  Adams,  82  Ind.  109,  1147 
Ayers  v.  Richards,  12  111.  146,  382 
Ayers  v.  State,  88  Ind.  275,  1074 

Ayers  v.  Watson,  113  U.  S.  594,  533 
Avres  V.  Carver,  17  How.  591,  1178 
Ayres  v.  Hill,  82  Ala.  401,  454 

Avres  v.  Hubbard,  88  Mich.  155, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  Ill,  665 

Ayres  v.  Lawrence,  63  Barb.  454, 

165,  324 
Avmar  v.  Beers,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

705,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  5.38, 

Aymar  v.  Roff,  3  Johns.  Ch.  49,    '  290 
Avrault  v.  Chamberlain,  33  Barb. 
229,  682,  692 

B 

Baasen  v.  Baehr,  7  Wis.  516,  407 

Babb  V.   Missouri   University,  40 

Mo.  App.  173,  712 

Babbage  v.  Coulbourn,  L.   R.,  9 

Q.  B.  Div.  235,  589 

Ba])cock  V.  Bricgs,  52  Cal.  502,  463 
Babcock  v.  Old  Colonv  R.  R.  Co., 

150  Mass.  467,  S.  C.'23  N.  E.  R. 

325,  536 

Babcock  V.  People,  13  Col.  515,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  817,  634,  667,  795 

Babcock  v.  Wolf,  70  Iowa  676,  217 
Baber  v.  Rickhart,  52  Ind.  594,  510 
Babbitt  v.  Doe,  4  Ind.  355,  274 

Bacas  v.  Smith,  33  La.  Ann.  139,  332 
Bachelder  v.  Putnam,  54  N.  H.  84, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  115,  470 

Bachman  v.  Roller,9  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 

409,  383 

Bachmann  v.  Milwaukee,  47  Wis. 

435,  630 


TABLE    Ol"    C'ASJ;S. 


xliii 


[References  arc  to  J'lUjes,  To/.  /,  ;>; 
Backhouse  v.  Bonomi,  9  II.  of  L. 

Cas.  503,  3(38 

Backus'  Appeal,  58  Pa.  St.  186,  201 
Backus  V.  Coyne,  35  Mich.  5,  583 

Backus  V.  Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  1!),  112!) 
Bacon  v.  Harris,  15  R.  I.  5U9,  S. 

C.  10  Atl.  K.  ()47,  553 

Bacon  v.  Jones,  4  M.  &  C.  433,  491 
Bacon  v.  Kcnne<lv,  5<)  Midi.  329,  450 
Bacon  v.  Kives,  10(1  V.  S.  99,  373 

Bacon  v.  Smith,  2  La.  Ann.  441, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  549,  401 

Bacon  v.   Spottiswoode,   1    Beav. 

382,  491 

Bacon  v.  State,  22  Fla.  46,  237 

Bacon    v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  53 

Ind.  229,  395 

Bacon    Academy    v.    Dewolf,   26 

Conn.  602,       '  470 

Badders  v.  Davis,  88  Ala.  367,  S. 

C.  6  So.  R.  834,  593,  1215 

Badger  v.  Daniel,  77  N.  Car.  251,  500 
Badger  v.  Kerber,  61  111.  328,  407 

Badger  v.  Wagstaff,  11  How.  Pr. 

562,  488,  489 

Bagsalav  v.  Borthwick,  10  C.  B. 

IS.  S.  61,  600 

Baggs  V.  Smith,  53  Cal.  88,  253 

Baglev  V.  Cleveland  Rolling  Mill 

Co. ,"21  Fed.  R.  159,  1053 

Baglev  V.  AVhite.  4  Pick.  395,  198 

Bailey  v.  /Etna  Ins.  Co.,  77  Wis. 

336,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  440,  589 

Bailev  v.   Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  112 

N.  Y.  20,  S.  C.'l9  N.  E.  R.  508,     406 
Bailev   v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    Co.,    1 

Ceiit.  L.  J.  418,  403 

Bailev  V.  Bailey  (Ga.),  16  S.  E. 

R.  90,  486 

Bailev  v.  Beck,  21  Kan.  462,  1119 

Bailev  v.  Dilhvorth,   10  Smed.  & 

M.  404,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  760,     582 
Bailey  v.  Ferguson,  39   111.  App. 

91,  536 

Bailey   v.   Glover,  21  Wall.  342, 

366,  368 
Bailey  v.  Kimbrough,  37  Mo.  182,  639 
Bailey  v.  Ryder,  10  N.  Y.  363,  280 
Bailev  v.  Schnitzins,  45  N.  J.  Eq. 

178;  478 

Bailev  v.  Smith,  14  Ohio  St.  396, 

S.  C.  84  Am.  Dec.  385,  1231 

Bailey  v.  Stewart.  3  Watts.  &  S. 

(Pa.)  560,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  50,  586 
Bailev   v.    Sundberg,  43  Fed.  R. 

81,"  1177 

Bailey  v.  Taylor,  11  Conn.  531,  532 
Bailey  v.  Trumbull,  31  Conn.  581, 

654,  6.56 
Bailey  v.  Trafe,  29  Cal.  422,  176 


.  1-aO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G0:}-ll>44.] 
Bailey  v.  Williams,  6  Ore.  71,  423 

Baily,  Ex  parte,  2  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

479,  539 

Baily  v.  Schrader,  34  Ind.  260,  613 
Baily  v.  Taylor,  1  R.  &  M.  73,  491 
Bain  v.   Bain,  106  N.  Car.  239,  S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  327,  1044 

Bain  v.   Globe  Ins.  Co.,  9  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  448,  441 

Bain  v.  AVhitehaven,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

H.  L.  Cas.  1,  1133 

Bainbrigge  v.  Blair,  3  Beav.  421,  498 
Baird  v.  Daly,  68  N.  Y.  547,  744 

Bainl  v.  Mayor,  74  N.  Y.  382, 

152,201,590,1131 
Baird  v.  Peall,  92  Cal.  235,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  R.  285,  1226 

Baird  v.  Wolfe,  4  McLean  549,  520 
Baislev  v.  Baisley,   113  Mo.  544, 

S.  C'.  21  S.  W.  R.  29,  608,  609 

Baisley  v.  Baislev,  15  Ore.  183,  S. 

C.  13  Pac.  R.  888,  226 

Baizer  v .  Lasch ,  28  Wis.  268,  158,  342 
Bakcman   v.    Pooler,    15    Wend. 

(X.  Y.)  637,  401 

Baker's  Case,  5  Coke  104,  1025 

Baker  v.  Baker,  51  Wis.  538,  182 

Baker  v.  Backus,  32  111.  79, 

195,  493,  495 
Baker  v.  Bardift,  76  Ala.  414,  361 

Baker  v.  Chisholm,  3  Tex.  157,  248 
Baker  v.  Corev,  19  Pick.  496,  520 

Baker  v.  Dessauer,  49  Ind.  28,  11.32 
Baker  v.  Dumaresque,  2  Atk.  66,  477 
Baker  v.  Eglin,  11  Ore.  333,  475 

Baker  v.  Fireman's  Fund,  73  Cal. 

182,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  686,        304,  639 
Baker  v.    Frellsen,  32   La.  Ann. 

822.  1179 

Baker  v.  Gordon,  23  Ind.  204,  642 

Baker  v.  Holmes,  27  :\Ie.  1.53,  433 

Baker  v.  Horsey,  21  Ind.  246,  1202 
Baker  v.  Josci^h,  16  Cal.  173,  800 

Baker   v.    Kellogg,    29    Ohio    St. 

663.  "  413 

Baker  v.    Kenworthv,   41    N.  Y. 

215,  '  196 

Baker  v.  Kirk,  .33  Ind.  517,  204 

Baker  v.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  52 

Wis.  193,  476 

Baker  v.  Lothrop,  1.55  Mass.  376, 

S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  643,  365 

Baker  v.  Lovett,  6  Mass.  78,  S.  C. 

4  Am.  Dec.  88,  .581 

Baker  v.  Mairinniss,  22  Ind.  257,  1226 
Baker  v.  Mafr,  12  Mass.  121,  389 

Baker  v.  .Moor,  84  Ga.  186,  S.  C. 

10  S.  E.  R.  737,  1202 

Baker  v.  Simmons,  40  Ind.  442,  641 
Baker  v.  Smilev,  84  Ind.  212,        1143 


xliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[lieferenccs  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Baker  v.  State,  90  Ga.  153,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  K.  788,  1133 

Baker  v.  State,  80  Wis,  416,  S.  C. 

50  N.  W.  R.  518,  214 

Baker  v.  State,  30  Fla.  41,  S.  C.  11 

So.  R.  492,  741 

Baker  v.  State,  3  Ark.  491,  1191 

Baker  v.  State,  09  Wis.  32,  S.  C. 

83  N.  W.  K.  52,        217,  685,800,821 
Baker  v.  Swift,  87  Ala.  530,  S.  C. 

6  So.  R.  153,  182 

Baker  v.  Taylor,  2  Blatch.  82,  485 

Baker  v.  Thompson,  89  Ga.  48G, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  644,  1121 

Baker  v.  Tillman,  84  Ga.  401,  S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  355,  387,  388 

Baker  v.  Wales,  45  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  137,  458 

Baker  v.  Wambaug,  99  Ind.  312,  217 
Balbo  V.  People,  19  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

424,  660 

Balch  V.  Shaw,  7  Cush.  282,  186,  191 
Baldwin's  Appeal,  44  Conn.  37,  822 
Baldwin  v.  Bricker,  86  Ind.  221,  823 
Baldwin  v.  Burrows,  95  Ind.  81,  178 
Baldwin  v.Calkins,10  Wend.  167,  218 
Baldwin  v.  Foss,  14  Neb.  455,  1184 
Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  223,  284 

Baldwin  v.  Marvgold,  2  Wis.  419.  636 
Baldwin  v.   McArthur,  17   Barb. 

414,  209 

Baldwin  v.  McCrea,  38  Ga.  650,  269 
Baldridge  v.  Penland,  68  Tex.441, 

S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R.  565,  320 

Baldwin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  75 

la.  297,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  479,     173 
Baldwin  v.  Shannon,  43  N.  J.  L. 

596,  1053 

Baldwin  v.  Wright,  3  Gill.  241,  1183 
Bales  V.  Brown,  57  Ind.  282,  190 

Bales  V.  Commonwealth  (Ky.),  11 

S.  W.  R.  470,  1111 

Bales  V.  State,  63  Ala.  30,  659,  662 
Ball  V.  Balfe,  41  Ind.  221,  1165 

Ball  V.  City  of  El  Paso,  5  Tex.Civ. 

App.  221,  S.  C.  23  S.W.  R.  835,    1072 
Ball  V.  Kehl,  95  Cal.  606,  S.  C.  30 

Pac.  R.  780,  1144 

Ball  V.  Larkin,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 

Y.)  555.  395 

Ball  V.  Loomis,  29  N.  Y.  412,  410 

Ball  V. United  States,  140  U.S.  118,  214 
Ball  V.  Lastinger,  71  Ga.  678,  297 

Ballance  v.   Underbill,   3   Scam. 

(111.)  453,  459,  723 

Ballard  v.  Eckman,  20  Fla.  661,  486 
Ballard  v.  Noaks,  2  Pike  (Ark.) 

45,  1168 

Ballard  v.  State,  31  Fla.  266,  S.  C. 

12  So.  R.  865,  619,  1074 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Ballard  v.  Thomas,  19  Gratt.  14, 

134,  168,  322 
Ballard    v.   Whitlock,   18   Gratt. 

(Va.)  235,  636 

Ballentine  v.  State,  48  Ark.  45,  S. 

C.  2  S.  W.  R.  340,  1229 

Ballinger  v.  Tarbell,  16  la.  491,  S. 

C.  85  Am.  Dec.  527,  320,  427,  450 
Ballou  V.  O'Brien,  20  Mich.  304,  394 
Ballston  Bank  v.  Marine  Bank,  16 

Wis.  125,  623 

Baltes  V.  Bass  Foundry,  etc.,  129 

Ind.  185,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  319,  597 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barnum,  79 

Ind.  261,  1235 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canton  Co., 

70  Md.  405,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  394, 

590,  598 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Galla- 

hue,  12  Gratt.  655,  S.  C.  65  Am. 

Dec.  254,  471,  473 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grant,  98 

U.  S.  398,  338 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kane, 

69Md.  11,S.C.13  Atl.R.387,  1072 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Ketring, 

122  Ind.5,  S.C.23  N.E.R.527,  1129 
Baltimore   &  Ohio  R.   R.  Co.  v. 

McKenzie,  81  Va.  71,  536 

Baltimore  &  Ohio   R.   R.   Co.  v. 

McWhinney,  36  Ind.  436,  675 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  17  AV  Va. 

812,  654,  679 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Polly, 

14  Gratt.  (Va.)  447,  602 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Resley,  14 

Md.  424,  1236 

Baltimore   &   Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Strieker,  51  Md.  47,  1051 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State, 

3f)  Md.  366,  546 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,   81 

Ind.  24,  474,  476 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wal- 

born,  127  Ind.  142,  546 

Baltimore,  etc..  Railroad  v.  Wil- 
son, 31  Ohio  St.  555,  527 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  2 

W.  Va.  528,  298 

Balue   V.    Richardson,    124  Ind. 

480,  1210 

Balue  V.  Taylor  (Ind.),  36  N.  E. 

R.  299,      '  1090 

Bamfoni  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  33 

Fed.  R.  677,  1215 

Bancroft  v.    Andrews,    6    Cush. 

(Mass.)  493,  377 

Bancroft  v.  Sheehanm,  21  Hun, 

550,  706 


TAIJLK    OK    CASKS. 


xlv 


\^Bcfcrences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Bancroft  v.Wilson,  2  Cow.  (N.Y.) 

495,  1040 

Bander  V.  Snyder,  5  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

63,  386 
Bane  v.  Ward,  77  Ind.  153,  11(38 
Banlill  v.  Leigh,  8  T.  R.  571,  582 
Bank  v.  Bachelder,  39  Am.  Dec. 

601,  468 

Bank  v.  Beale,  34  N  Y.  473,  353,  354 
Bank  v.  Carter,  88  Tenu.  279,  444 

Bank  v.  Daniel,   12  Pet.  32,  304 

Bank   v.    Dandridge,    12   Wheat. 

64,  157,  324 
Bank  v.   Fitzpatrick,   4  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  311,  466 

Bank  v.  Fordvce,  9  Pa.  St.  275,  S. 

C.  49  Am.  Dee.  561,  783 

Bank  v.  Gnttsrhlick,  14  Pet.  19,  1025 
Bank  v.  Hitchcoek,  20  Neb.  315,  1169 
Bank  v.  Pac.  Nat.  Bank,  89  N.  Y. 

397,  450 

Bank  v.  Widner,  11  Paige  (N.Y.) 

529,  S.  C.  43  Am.  Dec.  768,  585 

Bank  v.  Wheeler,  28  Conn.  433, 

S.  C.  73  Am.  Dec.  683,  1178 

Bank  v.  Wister,  2  Peters  (U.  S.) 

318,  397 

Bank  of  Attica  v.  Ballon,  49  N.Y. 

155,  382 

Bank  of  Benson  v.  Ilove,  45  Minn. 

40,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  449,  401 

Bank  of  B.  N.  A.  v.  Merchants' 

Nat.  Bank,  91  N.  Y.  106,  360 

Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Lawrence,  1 

Pet.  (U.  S.)  578.  554 

Bank  of  Connuerce  v.  Chambers, 

14  Mo.  Ai)p.  152,  555 

Bank  of  Genesee  v.  Spencer,  15 

How.  Pr.  412,  299 

Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland, 

33  Vt.  414,  739 

Bank  of  Mississippi  v.  Duncan, 

52  Miss.  740,  493 

Bank  of  Monroe  v.   Widner,   11 

Paige  529,  298 

Bank  of  Newburg  v.  Seymour,  14 

Johns.  219,  190 

Bank  of  North   .Vmerica  v.  Fitz- 

simons,  2  Binn.  (Pa.)  454,  220,225 
Bank    of    Northern   Liberties   v. 

Davis,  6  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  285, 

795,  796 
Bank  of  Old   Dominion   v.   Mc- 
Veigh, 32  Gratt.  530,  183 
Bank  of  So.  Carolina  v.  Knotts, 

10  Rich.  543,  363 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Bever- 

lev,  1  How.  134.  1185 

Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Lyles,  10  Gill  & 

J.  326,  378 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  PP-  oo:,'-rj44.] 
Bank   of    Utica  v.    Mersereau,  3 

Barb.  Ch.  528,  262,1130 

Bank   of  the  Vallev  v.   Bank   of 

Berkeley,  3  W.  Va.  386,  333 

Banks  v.  Adams,  23  3Ie.  259,  595 

Bangs  V.  Brewster,  111  Mass.  382,  312 
Bangs   V.    Duckinlield,   18   N.  Y. 

592,  329 

Banks  v.   Fowler,  3  Litt.    (Ky.) 

3:J2,  239 

Bannen  v.  Kokomo,  etc.,  Co.,  115 

Ind.  115,  525 

Banner  Tobacco  Co.  v.  Jenison, 

48  Mich.  459,  1097 

Banning  v.  Banning,  12  Ohio  St. 

437,  679 

Bannister  v.  Jett,  83  Ind.  129,  675 
Banta  v.  Remolds,  3  B.  Mon.  80,  243 
Banta  v.  Wood,  32  Iowa  469,  463 

Banton  v.  Campbell,  2  Dana  421,  1179 
Barber  V.Barber,  21  How.  (U.S.) 

582,  311 

Barber  v.  Brisco,  9  Mont.  341,  S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  726,  187 

Barber  v.  Graves,  18  Vt.  290,  293 

Biirber  v.  Kennedy,  18  Minn.  216,  158 
Barber  v.  Morris,  37  Minn.  194, 

S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  836,  451 

Barber  v.  State,  13  Fla.  675,  153 

Barber  v.  Winslow,  12  Wend.  102,  329 
Barber  v.  Wood,  2  Moo.  &  R.  172,  521 
Barbour  v.  Newkirk,  83  Ky.  529,  609 
Ban-lav's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  69,  382 
Barclift  v.  Treeve,  77  Ala.  528,  313 
Bard  v.  Bingham,  54  Ala.  46^^,  495 
Bard  v.  Kleeb,  1  Wash.  370,  S.  C. 

25  Pac.  R.  467,  1146 

Barden  v.  Briscoe,  36  Mich.  254,  692 
Bardonski  v.   Bardonski,  144  111. 

284,  1200 

Bardsley  v.  Hines,  33  la.  157, 

446,447 
Bardwell  v.  Collins,  44  Minn.  97, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  547, 

273,  276,  444 
Barefield  v.  Brvan,  8  Oa.  463,  1189 
Barger  v.  Buckland,  28 Gratt.  850,  281 
Barhyte  v.   Summers,   68    Mich, 

341,  S.  C.  36  N.  W.  R.  93,  697 

Baring  Brothei-s  &  Co.,  In  re,  61 

L.  .1.  Q.  B.  704.  590 

Barker  v.  Belknap,  89  Vt.  168,  573 
Barker  v.  Blount,  63  (ia.  423,  783 

Barker  v.  Hine,  54  Ind.  542,  655 

Barker  v.  Justice,  41  :Miss.  240,  1208 
Barker   v.   Livingston    Co.  Bank, 

30  111.  App.  591',  1081 

Barker  v.  State,  48  Ind.  163.  524, 1072 
Barkv^^r  v.  Town  of  Perrv,  67  la. 

146,  S.  C.  25  N.  W.  R.  100,  810 


xlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferencrs  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Barker  v.  White,  58  N.  Y.  204,      1170 
Barklev  v.  Ilanlun,  55  IMiss.  606,    1159 
Barklow  v.  Sanser,  47  Wis.  500,    1094 
Barlev  v.  Dunn,  So  Ind.  338,  1230 

Barlow  v.  Broi-k,  25  Iowa  308,  111 
Barlow  v.  Stanford,  82  111.  298,  435 
Barlow  v.  State,  2  Blackf.  114,  1220 
Barnabv    v.    Barnaby,    1     Pick. 

(Mass.)  221,  581 

Barnaooat  v.  Gunpowder,  1  Met. 

230,  278 

Barnard  v.  Bartholomew,  22  Pick. 

29] ,  394 

Barnard  v.  Flinn,  8  Ind.  204,  514 

Barnard   v.    Heydrick,   49   Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  62,  433 

Barnawell  v.  Treadgill,  5  Ired.  Eq. 

86,  337 

Barner  v.  Bayless,  134  Ind.  600, 

S.C.  33  N.E'.R.  907,  1150, 1151, 1219 
Barnhardt  v.  Smith,  86  N.   Car. 

473,  513 

Barnhart  v.  Davis,  30  Kan.  520,  134 
Barnes  v.  Badger,  41  Barb.  98,  154 
Barnes  v.  Bates,  28  Ind.  15,  403 

Barnes  v.  Blackiston,  2  Harr.  & 

J.  (Md.)  376,  1229 

Barnes    v.    Brown,    69    N.    Car. 

439,  544,  550 

Barnes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  122 

V.  S.  1,  1186 

Barnes    v.    Ingalls,  39  Ala.    193, 

30,  713,  1215 
Barnes  v.  Lee,  1  Cr.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

430,  182 

Barnes  v.  Mayor,  19  Ala.  707,  545 

Barnes  v.  McMullins,  78  Mo.  260, 

224,  230 
Barnes  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  54 

Mich.  243,  1192 

Barnes  v.  Mowry,  129  Ind.  568,  413 
Barnes  v.  Racine,  4  Wis.  454,  483 

Barnes  v.  Scott,  29  Fla.  285,  S.  C. 

llSo.  R.  48,  620 

Barnes  v.   Sission,   44   111.    App. 

.327,  1199 

Barnes  v.  Treat,  7  Mass.  271,  471 

Barnes  v.    Williams,   11   Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  415,  1103,  1105 

Barnett  v.  Chicago,   etc.,   R.  R. 

Co.,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)  114,  440 

Barnett  v.  State,  100  Ind.  171,  1081 
Barnett  v.  Tayler,  30  Tex.  453,  430 
Barnett  v.  Watson,  1  Wash.(Va.) 

.372,  1116 

Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chip.  (Vt.) 

.399,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  696,  401,  402 
Barney  v.  Flower,  27  Minn.  403,  576 
Barney  v.  Fuller,  15  N.  Y.  Supp. 

694,  778 


l-()02,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Barney  v.  Giles,  120  111.  154,  406 

Barney  v.  Hartford,  73  Wis.  95,  S. 

C.  40  N.  W.  R.  581,  1212 

Barnum  v.  Barnum,  42  Md.  251,  292 
Barnum  v.  Ins.  Co.,  97  N.Y.  188,  385 
Barr  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Mo. 

App.  248,  111 

Barreda  v.  Silsbee,  21  How.  (U. 

S.)  146,  537,  539 

Barrel!  v.  Tilton,  119  U.  S.  637, 

185,  1187 
Barrett  v.  Am.  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.  (N. 

Y.),34N.  E.  R.  289,  442 

Barrett  v.  Garragan,  16  la.  47,  1192 
Barrett  v.  Chitwood,  2  Bibb.  431,  298 
Barrett  v.  Crane,  16  Vt.  246,  317 

Barrett  v.  Fisch,  76  la.  553,  S.  C. 

41  N.  W.  R.  310,  16,  111,  1130 

Barrett  v.   Long,  3   House  of  L. 

Cas.  395,  645 

Barrett  v.  State,  1  Wis.  175,  138 

Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  642 
Barron  v.  Frink,  30  Cal.  486,  1196 

Barron  v.  Peter,  18  Vt.  385,  509 

Barrow  v.  Hill,  13  How.  (U.S.)54,  618 
Barrow  v.  Robichaux,  15  La. Ann. 

70,  1046 

Barrows  v.  Sweet,  143  Mass.  316,  600 
Barry  v.  Foyles,  1  Pet.  (U.S.)  311,  469 
Barry  v.  Johnson,  3  Mo.  372,  1200 
Barry  v.  Randolph,  3  Binn.  (Pa.) 

277,  173 

Barstow  v.  Sprague,  40  N.  H.  27,  1087 
Bartelott  v.  International  Bank, 

119  111.  259,  513,  1052 

Bartelson  v.  Bower,  81  Ind.  512,  1170 
Barth  v.  Green,  78  Tex.  678,  S.  C. 

15  S.  W.  R.  112,  1133 

Bartholomew  v.  People,  104  111. 

601,  798 

Bartholomew  v.  Pierson,  112  Ind. 

430,  1105 

Bartholomew  v.  Stephens,  8  C.  & 

P.  728,  504 

Bartle  v.  Plane,  68  la.  227,  S.  C. 

26  N.  W.  R.  88,  1191 

Bartlett  v.  Adams,  43  Ind.  447,  397 
Bartlett  v.  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 

Co.,  94  Ind.  281,  1097 

Bartlett  v.  Smith,   11   M.   &  W. 

483,  517,  524,  715 

Bartlett  v.  Spicer,  75  N.  Y.  528, 

280,  444 
Bartlett  v.Wilson,  59  Vt.  23,  S.  C. 

8  Atl.  R.  321,  424 

Bartley  v.  Phillips,  114  Ind.  189, 

1121,  1150,  1154 
Bartley  v.  State,  111  Ind.  358,  1237 
Barton  v.  Barbour,  104  U.  S.  126, 

410,  493 


TAHLK    OK    CASKS. 


xlvii 


IRaferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Barton  v.  Krickson,  14  Neb.  164,     654 
Barton  v.  Kane,  17  Wis.  88,  S.  C. 

84  Am.  Dec.  728,  1043 

Barton  v.  McKay  (Neb.),  54  N. 

W.  R.  968,  623 

Barton  v.   St.   I^ouis,  etc.,  R.   R. 

Co.,  52  Mo.  25;^,  548 

Barton  v.  Sanger,  47  Wis.  500,       1094 
Barton  v.  Saundens,  16  Ore.  51,  S. 

C.  8  Am.  St.  R.  261,  S.  C.  16  Pac. 

R.  921,  300,  445 

Barton  v.  Trent,  3  Head.  (Tenn.) 

167,  512 

Bascom  v.   Feazler,  2  How.  Pr. 

16,  1200 

Bascom  v.  Toner,  5  Tnrl.  App.  229, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  856,  505 

Basev  v.  Gallegher,  20  Wall.  670,  1127 
Bash  V.  Christian,  77  Ind.  290, 

586,  590,  601 
Bash  V.  Christian,  84  Ind.  180,  586 
Baskerville  v.    Harris,   41    Miss. 

535,  555 

Bash  V.  Van  Osdol,  75  Ind.  186,    1199 
Bass  V.  Bass,  6  Pick.  362,  361 

Bass  V.  Bass,  8  Pick. (Mass.)  187,   385 
Bass  V.  City  of  Ft.  Wayne,  121 

Ind.  312,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  148, 

269,  478 
Bass  V.  Comstock,  38  N  Y.  21,  1214 
Bass  V.  Irvin,  49  Ga.  438,  1111 

Bass  V.  Smith,  60  Ind.  40,  1200 

Bass  V.  The  State,  17  Fla.  685,         153 
Bass,  etc.,  Works  v.  Board,  115 

Ind.  284,  318 

Bass  Foundry  Co.  v.  The  Board, 

115  Ind.  234,  315 

Basse  v.  Gallegger,  7  Wis.  442,        412 
Bassenger  v.   Spangler,   9    Colo. 

175,  1050 

Bassham  v.  State,  38  Texas  622, 

782,  791 
Bassenhorst  v.  Wilby,  45  Ohio  St. 

333,  553 

Bassenhorst  v.  Sweeney,  77  Wis. 

55,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  938,  555 

Bassett,  ex  parte,  2  Cowen  458,     1241 
Bassett  v.  City,  53  Mo.  290,  S.  C. 

14  Am.  R.  446,  .  411 

Bassett  v.  Cunningham,  9  Gratt. 

(Pa.)  684,  579,594 

Bassett  v.  Govenor,  11  Ga.  207, 

225,  654 
Bassett  v.  Marshall,  9  Mass.  312,  503 
Bassett  v.  Shares,  63  Conn.  39,  S. 

C.  27  Atl.  R.  421,  737 

Bassett  v.  United  States,  9  Wall. 

38  1131 

Bate  V.  McDowell,  48  N.  Y.  Supr. 
Ct.  219,  466 


1-002,  Vol.  If,  pp.  00:^-1244.'] 
Bates  V.  Barber,  4  Cush.  107,     518,  805 
Bates  V.  Bates,   1  Mias.  401,  S.  C. 

12  Am.  Dec.  572,  401 

Bates  V.  Curtis,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 

247,  598 

Bates  V.  Gage,  40  Cal.  183,        142,  155 
Bates  V.  McConnell,  32  Kan.  1,  S. 

i).  3  Pac.  R.  515,  336 

Bateman  v.   Miller,  118  Ind.  345, 

S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  292,  .336 

Bates  V.  Pricket,  5  Ind.  22,       101,  108 
Bates  V.  Sabin,  64  Vt.  511,  S.  C. 

24  Atl.  R.  1013.  234 

Bates  V.  State  Hank,  7  Ark.  394, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec  293,  413,  430 

Bates  V.  Tavlor,  87  Tenn.  319,  S. 

C.  28  Am." Law  Keg.  341,  49,  170,251 
Bates  v.Willard,  10  Mete.  (Mass.) 

62,  435 

Bates  V.  WMlliam,  43  111.  494,  346 

Bathgate  v.  Haskin,  59  N.Y.  533,    362 
Batre  v.  Auze,  5  Ala.  173,  452 

P.attell  V.  Lowry,  46  la.  49,  1191 

Batten  v.  State,  80  Ind.  394,  142 

Batterbnrv  v.Vvse,  2  H.  &C.42,  32 

L.  J.  Exch    lY7,  407 

Batterson  v.  State,  63  Ind.  531,      1120 
Battey  v.  Button,  13  Johns.  (N.Y.) 

187,  592 

Batten  v.  Taggert,  17  How   (U.  S.) 

74,  542 

Battishill  v.  Humphrey,  64  Mich. 

494,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  894,  682 

Battle  V.  Davis,  66 N.  Car.  252,    194,  409 
Battle  V.  Mc Arthur,  49  Fed.   R. 

715,  374,  566,  570 

Battle  V.  Plane,  68  Iowa,  227,  S. 

C.  26N.  W.  R.  88,  1193 

Bauer  V.  Sampson  Lodge,  102  Ind. 

262  S.  C.  1  N.  E.  R.  571,        408,  588 
Baughman   v.    Calveras,   72  Cal. 

512,  255 

Baum  V.  Burns,  m  Miss.  124,  S.  C. 

5  So.  R.  697,  627 

Bauman  v.  Grubbs,  26  Ind.  419,      381 
Baumberger  v.  Arff,  96  Cal.  261, 

S.  C.  3f  Pac.  R.  53,  619 

Baumgarten  v.  Magone,  50  Fed. 

R.  69,  538 

Baumgartner    v.    Guessfield,    38 

Mo.  36,  443 

Baxter  v.  Abbott.  7  Gray  71,  1168 

Baxter  v.  IMcKinlav,  16Cal.  76,      397 
Baxter  v.  Pavne,  IPinn.  501,  508 

Baxter  v.  People,  3  Gilm.  368,       1064 
Baxter  v.  People,  7  111.  578,  631 

Bavard  v.  McLane,  3  Harr.  (DeL) 

139,  224 

Bavlcss  V.  Glenn,  72  Ind.  5,  1165 

Bavne  v.  Morris,  1  Wall.(U.S.)97,    598 


xlviii 


TAI'.Ll':    OF    CASKS. 


[Befereuces  are  to  Pages,  ]"ol.  I,  pp 
Bays  V.  Hunt,  OO  la.  251,  697 

Beach  v.  Atkinson,  87  Ga.  288,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  H.  591.  243 

Beaoh  v.  Lealiv,  11  Kan.  23,  121, 171 
Beach    v.    Nethorland    (Ga.),    18 

S.  E.  R.  525,  1066, 1067 

Beach  v.  Packard,  10  Vt.  96,  S.  C. 

33  Am.  Dec.  185,  1232 

Beadel  v.  Perrv,  L.  R.,  3  Eq.  465,  478 
Beakes   v.  Du'Cunha,  126  N.  Y. 

293  413 

Be"al  V.  Blair,  33  la.  318,  451 

Beal  V.  Chase,  31  Mich.  490,  255 

Beall  V.  Lvnn,  6  Harr.  &  Johns. 

(Md.)  336,  518 

Beal  V.  Nichols,  2  Gray  (Mass.), 

262,  783,  790 

Beal  V.  State,  15  Ind.  378,  308 

Beal  V.  Stone,  22  la.  447,  1165 

Beall  V.  Bullock  (Miss.),  11  So.  R. 

720,  1068 

Beall  V.  Sinquefield,  73  Ga.48,  218 
Beals  V.  Beals,  27  Ind.  77,  1159 

Beam  v.  Bridges,  111  N.  Car.  269, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  391,  1202 

Beam  v.  Macomber,  33  Mich.  127,  602 
Bean  v.  Bean,  25  W.  Va.  604,  595 

Bean  v.  Farnam,  6  Pick.  (Mass.) 

269,  581,  602 

Bean  v.  Pearsall,  12  Ala.  592,  520 

Bean  v.  Thompson,  19  N.  H.  290,  430 
Bean  v.  Tonnele,  94  N.  Y.  381,  385 
Bean  v.  Wendell,  22  N.  H.  582, 

591,  599 
Beans  v.  Emanuelli,  36  Cal.  117,  1164 
Bear  v.  Cohen,   65   N.  Car.  511, 

226,  227 
Beard,  Ex  parte,  41  Tex.  234,  189 

Beard  v.  Beard,  21  Ind.  321,  276,  289 
Beard    v.    First    Nat.    Bank,   41 

Minn.  153,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  7,   718 
Beard  v.  Hand,  88  Ind.  183,  1230 

Beard  v.  Smith,  9  la.  50,  604 

Beard  v.  State,  54  Ind.  413,  1230 

Beardslee  v.  French,  7  Conn.  125,  306 
Beaslev  v.   Brav,  98  N.  Car.  266, 

S.  C."  3  So.  R."497,  541,542 

Beasley  v.  Downey,  10  Ired.  (N. 

Car.)  284,  513 

Beattie  v.  Hilliard,  55  N.  H.  428,  590 
Beattie  v.  Wilkinson,  36  Fed.  R. 

646,  451 

Beatty  v.  Beatty  (Ky.),  5  S.  W. 

771,  "  1179 

Beaiv  v.  State,  82  Ind.  228,  1114 

Beauhien  v.Cicotte,  8  Mich.  9,  679 
Beauchamp  v.   State,   6    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  299,  544 

Beaulien  v.  Parsons,  2  Minn.  37, 

179,707,  791 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Beaupre  v.  Brigham,  79  Wis.  436, 

S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  590,  447,  453 

Beauregard   v.   New   Orleans,   18 

How.  497,  275 

Beavens  v.  Goodrich,  98  N.  Car. 

217,  S.  C.  3S.  E.  R.  516,  1129 

Beaver  v.  Taylor,  93  U.  S.  4(>,  1079 
Beavers  v.  State,  58  Ind.  520,  30,  1228 
Bebb  V.  Preston,  1  la.  460,  473 

Bechdolt  v.  Grand  Rapids  &  I. 

Rv.  Co.,  113  Ind.  343,  S.  C.  15 

N^  E.  R.  686,  1097 

Beck  V.  Williams,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

374,  620 

Becker  v.  Becker,  45  la.  239,  1069 
Becker  v.  Boon,  61  N.  Y.  317,  402 

Becker  v.  Hecker,  9  Ind.  497,  559 

Becker  v.  Koch,  104  N.  Y.  394,  794, 795 
Becker  v.  Lamont,  13  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.),23,  614 

Becker  v.  Simons,  33  Neb.  680,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.  R.  1129,  187 

Becker  v.  Vandercook,  54  Mich. 

114,  394 

Becker  v.  Van  Valkenburgh,  29 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  319,  380 

Becker  v.  Walworth,  45  Ohio  St. 

109,  354 

Beckett  v.  Bledsoe,  4  Ind.  256,  397 
Beckett  v.  Cuenin,  15  Colo.  281,  S. 

C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  399,  445,  446 

Beckett  v.  Selover,  7  Cal.  215,  S. 

C.  68  Am.  Dec.  237,  314 

Beckford  v.  Wade,  17  Ves.  87,  373, 380 
Beckmann  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  49 

Mo.  A  pp.  604,  1162 

Becknellv.Becknell,110Ind.42,  1215 
Beck  with  v.  Baxter,  3  N.  H.  67,  199 
Beckwith  v.  Bean,  98  U.  S.  266,  1079 
Beckwith    v.    Philbv,  6   Barn.  & 

Cres.  635,  '  553 

Bedard  v.  Bonville,  57  Wis.  270,  537 
Beddow  v.  Beddow,  L.  R.,  9  Ch. 

Div.  89,  591 

Bedford  v.  Flowers,    11  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  242,  536 

Be<lford  v.  Penny,  58  Mich.  424,     820 
Bedford  v.  Penney,  65  Mich.  667,     823 
Bedford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rain- 
bolt.  99  Ind.  551,  1094 
Bedgood  V.    State,  115  Ind.    275, 

712,  781 
Bedwell  v.  Jones,  9  Lea  (Tenn.) 

168,  337 

Beebe  v.  Bull,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

504,  712 

Beebe  v.  Doster,  36  Kan.  666,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  150,  275 

Beebe  v.  Russell,  19  How.  283,  1187 
Beebe  v.  Scheldt,  13  Ohio  St.  406,  158 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


xlix 


[Bcfercnces  are  to  Pages,  ]'ol.  I,  pp 
Beech  v.  Abbott,  (i  Vt.  581),  321 

Beecli  V.  Rich,   13  Vt.  o95,  221 

Beecher  v.   Stepiiens,   25   Minn. 

140,  449 

Beedy  v.  Maconiber,  47  Me.  451,  542 
Beeknian  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

Paige  45,  1129 

Beekinan  v.  Satterlee,  5  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)  519,  377 

Beeler  v.  Ilantscii,  5  Blackf.  594,  149 
Beers  v.  Beers,  4  Conn.  535,  S.  C. 

10  Am.  Dec.  180,  643 

Beers  v.  Bottslonl,  13  Conn.  140,  1180 
Beers  v.  Payment,  95  Mich.  201, 

S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  880,  789 

Beers  v.  Phice,  30  Conn.  578,  407 

Beers  v.  Shannon,  73  N.  Y.  292,  1 192 
Beeson  v.  Howard,  44  Ind.  413,  1158 
Begg  V.  Begg,  50  Wis.  534,  541 

Begg  V.  Forbes,  30  Eng.  L.  &  Eq. 

508,  537 

Behaiy  v.  Hatch,  Walker  (Miss.) 

369,  S.C.  12  Am.  Dec.  570,      400,401 
Behlow  V.  Shorb,  91  Cal.  141,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  546,  431 

Behrens    v.    McCance,    100   Ind. 

330,  1214 

Behrensraever  v.  Kreitz,  135  HI. 

591,  S.  C.'20  N.  E.  R.  704,  312 

Behymer  v.  Nordloh,  12  Col.  352,  158 
Beiler  v.  Dovoll,  40  Mo.App.  251,  411 
Beisiegel  v.  N.Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

40  N.  Y.  9,  548 

Beitman  v.  Hopkins, 109  Ind. 177,  1239 
Belb  V.  Davis,  1  Cal.  134,  1182 

Belbee  v.  Belbee,  0  Mad.  20,  1210 
Belcher  v.  Linn,  24  How.  (U.  S.) 

508,  251 

Belck  V.  Belck,  97  Ind.  73,  018 

Belcher  v.  Chambers,  53  Cal.  642, 

117,  247,  277,  444 
Belew  V.  Jones,  50  Miss.  592,  297 

Belfast  Nat.  Bank  v.  Harriman,  68 

Me.  522,  532 

Belk  V.  Meagher,  104  U.  S.  279,  1128 
Belknaj)    v.    Gibbens,    13    Mete. 

(Mass.)  471,  471 

Belknaj)  v.  Godfrey,  22  Vt.  288,  558 
Bell's  Appeal,  115  Pa.  St.  88,  S.  C. 

2  Am.  St.  R.  532,  378 

Bell  V.  Austin,  13  Pick.  (Mass.) 

90,  432 

Bell  V.  Brewster,  44  Ohio  St.  690,  31 
Bell  V.  Bnimstead,  14  N.Y.  Supp. 

697,  1206 

Bell  V.  Coffin,  51  Kan.  684,  S.  C. 

33  Pac.  R.  29(),  1228 

Bell  V.  Corbin  (Ind.),  36  N.  E.  R. 

23,  1151 


l-GO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
Bell  V.  Craie:,  52  Ala.  215,  259 

Bell  V.  Fludd,  28  S.  Car.  313,  343 

Bell  V.  (iandjle,  9  Humph. (Tenn.) 

117,  480 

Bell  V.  CJardiier,  77  III.  319,  1048 

Bell  V.  Gaylord  (N.  Mex.),27  Pac. 

R.  494,  499 

Bell  V.  Good,  19  N.Y.  Supp.  093,  004 
Bell  V.  Hudson,  73  Cal.  285,  S.  C. 

2  Am.  St.  R.  791,  37() 

Bell  V.  Jamison,  102  Mo.  71,  514,  704 
Bell  V.  Keefe,  12  La.  Ann.  340,  714 
Bell  V.  Keepers,  37  Kan.  04,  537 

Dell  V.  Kendall,  93  Ala.  489,  S.  C. 

8  So.  R.  492.  1215 

Bell  V.  :\lansfield.  13  S.W.R.  838,  1202 
Bell  V.  -Massey,  14  La.  Ann.  831,  1192 
Bell  V.  Matthews,  37  Kan.  080,  552 
Bell  V.  Morrison,  1  Pet. (U.S.)  351, 

382,  384 
Bell  V.  Prewitt,  02  111.  201,  783 

Bell  V.  Raymond,  18  Conn.  91,  317 
Bell  V.  Rinker,  29  Ind.  207,  1231 

Bell  V.  Rinner,  10  Ohio  St.  R.  45,  797 
Bell  V.  Vernooy,  18  Hun  (N.  Y.), 

125,  590 

Bell  V.  Wash.,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Wash. 

— ,  S.  C.  35  Pac.  R.  405,  1080 

Bell  V.  Woodward,  40  N.  H.  315, 

537  539 
Bellamy  v.  Bellamy,  4  Ala.  342,  'll87 
Bellamy   v.    (h\h\,'  02    How.    Pr. 

400,  443 

Bellandes'  Succession, 42  La.  .\nn. 

241,  .340 

Bellas  V.  McCarty,  10  Watts  13,  1 10 
Belleau  y.  Thompson,  33  Cal.  495,  376 
Bellefontaine  Rv.  Co.  v.  Hunter, 

33  Ind.  335,     "  548 

Bellinger  y.  Kitts,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

273,  404 

Bellows  V.  Shannon,    2  Hill  (N. 

Y.)  86,  1156 

Bellows  V.  Sowles,  55  Vt.  391,  S. 

C.  45  Am.  R.621,  566 

Belmont  v.  Cornen,  82  N.  Y.  256,  445 
Belmore  v.  Caldwell,  2  Bibb.  76,  1158 
Beloit,  etc..  Bank  y.  Merrill,  etc.. 

Works,  81  Wis.  142,  S.  C.  50  N. 

W.  R.  505,  381 

Belt  y.  Davis,  1  Cal.  134,  1044 

Belt  v.  Goode,  31  Mo.  128,  1000 

Belvin  v.  Richmond,  85  Va.  574,  137 
Belz  v.  Bird,  31  Kan.  139,  398 

Bement  v.  May  (Ind.),  .34  N.  E. 

R.  327.  5(i0.  0.33.  034.  1232,  1241 

Bemis  v.  Wood  worth,  49  la.  340,  1051 
Benaway  v.  Bond,  2  Pin.  (Wis.) 

449,  S.  C.  54  Am.  Dec.  147,  183 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferenccs  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Bender  v.  Bean,  52  Ark.  132,  S.C. 

12  S.  W.  K.  141,  399 

Bendv  v.  Boyce,  37  Tex.  443,  430, 456 
Benedict  v.  Bray,  2  Cal.251,  S.  C. 

5CJ  Am.  Dec.  332,  346 

Benedict  v.  State,  44  Ohio  St.  679,  189 
Benelield  v.  Albert,  132  111.  665,  327 
Benesch  v.  Waggner,  12  Col.  534,  803 
Benford  v.  Daniels,  20  Ala.  445,  255 
Benge  v.  Com.,  92  Ky.  1,  S.  C.  17 

S.  W.  R.  146,  623 

Benham  v.  Rowe.  2  Cal.  387,  S.  C. 

56  Am.  Dec.  342,  669,  675 

Benjamin  v.  Dubois,  118  U.  S.  46,  1187 
Benjamin  v.  Zell,  100  Pa.  St.  33,  397 
Bennac  v.  People,  4  Barb.  31,  133 

Benneson  v.  Bill,  62  111.  408,  194 

Bennethum  v.  Bowers,  133  Pa.  St. 

332,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  361,  455 

Bennett,  Ex  parte,  44  Cal.  84, 

139,  155,  242 
Bennett  V.  Avant,  2Sneed  (Tenn.) 

152,  464 

Bennett  v.  Bennett,  37  W.   Va. 

396,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  638,  508 

Bennett  v.  Carey,  57  la.  221,  636,  640 
'Bennett  v.  Cobb,  45  N.  Y.  268,  364 
Bennett  v.  Davis,  1  N.  H.  19,  362 

Bennett  v.  Ford,  47  Ind.  264,  174,633 
Bennett  v.  Gibbons,  55  Conn.  450, 

S.  C.  12  Atl.  R.  99,  712 

Bennett  v.  Hetherington,  41  la. 

142,  450 

Bennett  v.  LeRoy,  5  Abb.  Pr.  R. 

55,  192 

Bennett    v.    Lyconing,  etc.,   Ins. 

Co.,  67  N.  Y.  274,  553 

Bennett  v.  Mclntire,  121  Ind.  231,  304 
Bennett  V.  Meehan,  83  Ind.  566,  739 
Bennett  v.  O' Byrne,  23  Ind.  604,  801 
Benninghoff  v.  Oswell,  37  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  235,  458 

Bennac  v.  People,  4  Barb.  31,  126 

Bennett  v.  State,  3  Ind.  167,  637 

Bennett  v.  State,  86  Ga.  401,  820 

Bensell  v.  Chancellor,  3  Whart. 

(Pa.)  371,  380 

Bensinger  Self  Adding,  etc.,  Co. 

V.  Cain  (Tex.),  18  S.  W.  Rep. 

136,  353 

Benson  v.  Adams,  69  Ind.  353,  379 
Benson  V.  Baldwin,  108  Ind.  106,  1237 
Benson  v.  Berry,  55  Barb.  620,  198 
Benson  v.  Campbell,  6  Port.  (Ala.) 

455,  464 

Benson  v.  Christian,  129  Ind.  535, 

123,  254 
Benson  v.  Cilley,  8  Ohio  St.  604,  274 
Benson  v.  Fish,  6  Greenl.   (Me.) 

141,  1077 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Benson  v.  McFadden,  50  Ind.  431,  620 
Benson  v.  Stewart,  30  Miss.49,  371 
Bentley's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  504,  385 
Bentley  v.  Davidson,  74  Wis.  420,  406 
Bentley   v.    Shrieve,   4   Md.   Ch. 

Dec.  412,  198 

Bentley  v.  Wright,  3  Ala.  607,        191 
Bent  V.  Graves,  3  McCord  280,  S, 

C.  15  Am.  Dec.  632,  248,  342 

Bent  V.  Maupin,  86  Ky.  271,  S.  C. 

5  S.  W.  R.  425,  636,  1207 

Bent  V.  Maxwell,  etc.,  Co.,  3  New 

Mex.  158,  S.  C.  3  Pac.  R.  721,  304 
Bent  V.  Philbrick,  16  Kan.  190,  1087 
Benton   v.   Lindell,    10   Mo.  557, 

475,  1156 
Benton  v.  Shreve,  4  Ind.  66,  402 

Benton  v.  State,  30  Ark.  328,  815 

Benton  v.  Toler,  109  N.  Car.  238, 

S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  763,  550 

Bentz  V.  Eubanks,  32  Kan.  321,      604 
Berdel  v.  Egan,  125  111.  298,  505 

Berghoi:f  v.    McDonald,   87   Ind. 

549,  1199 

Bergman,  Ex  parte,  3  Wyo.  396, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  914,  221 

Berkey,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hascall,  123 

Ind.  502,  1202 

Berkley  Peerage  Case,  4  Campb. 

401,  32 

Berkley  v.  Kobes,  13  Mo.  App. 

502,  1233 

Berkowitz  v.  Lester,  121  111.  99,      337 
Berks   Co.   v.   Jones,    21   Pa.  St. 

413,  1134 

Berks  Co.  v.  Pile,  18  Pa.  St.  493,  1134 
Berkshire  Woolen  Co.  v.  Proctor, 

7  Cash.  (Mass.)  417,  548 

Berlin  v.  Oglesbee,  65  Ind.  308, 

641,  1233 
Berlin  Iron  Bridge  Co.  v.  Norton, 

51  N.  J.  L.  442,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R, 

1079,  441 

Bernal  v.  Lynch,  36  Cal.  135,  318 

Berney  v.  Mitchell,    34   N.  J.  L. 

337,  512 

Bernhamer  v.  State,  123  Ind.  577, 

174,  621,  633,  634 
Bernstein   v.    Hobelman,  70  Md. 

29,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  374,  341 

Berry  v.  American,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

132  N.  Y.  49,  570 

Berry  v.  Anderson,  2  How.  (Miss.) 

649,  1191 

Berry  v.  Borden,  7  Blkf.  384,        1172 
Berry  v.  Carter,  19  Kan.  135,  589 

Berry  v.  Chamberlain,  53  N.J.  L 

463,  S.  i).  23  Atl.  R.  115,  644 

Berrv  v.  Makepeace,  3  Ind,  154,     341 
Berrv  v    Metzler,  7  Cal.  418,  620 


TAIil.K    OF    CASKS. 


[lieferpiices  arc  to  rar/i's,   To/.  /,  pji 
Berry  v.  Seitz,  15  Ind.  fii),  IL'OO  I 

Berrianv.  Rogers,  43  Fed.  R.  4()7,   4oO  j 
Berry  v.  Wilkinson,  2  Hi.  I(i4,        ti'Mi 
Bertiiold  v.  Fox,  i'l  ]\linn.  ol, 

190,  1244 
Bertholf  v.  O'Reillv,  74  N.  Y.  59,  424 
Bertrand  v.  Tavlor"  32  Ark.  470,  676 
Besson  v.  Southard,  ION.  Y.  23H,  552 
Bessette  v.  State,  101  Ind.  85,  803,820 
Bestv.  Best  (Ky.),  11    S.  W.  R. 

810,  558 

Best  V.  Hoppie,  3  Col.  137,  1180 

Bestv.  Johnson,  12  Am.  St.  R.  41,  466 
Best  V.  Vanhook  (Ky.),  13  S.  W. 

R.  119,  386 

Bestor  v.  Sardo,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 

2(iO,  624 

Bethea  v.  McLennon,  1  Ired.  L. 

523,  289 

Bethell  v.  Bethell,  L.  R.,  34  Ch. 

Div.  561,  382 

Bethell  v.  Bethell,  92  Ind.  318,  281 
Bethell  v.  Matthews,  13  Wall.  1,  1146 
Bethune  v.  Dozier,  10  Ga.  235,  413 
Bethune  v.  Hale,  45  Ahi.  522,  163 

Betterbee  v.  Davis,  3  Camp.  70,  400 
Betts  V.  Baglev,  12  Pick.  572,  323 

Betts  V.  Baxter,  58  Miss.  334,  427 

Betts  V.  Baxter,  58  Miss.  329,  320 

Betts  V.  Bovd,  31  Neb.  815,  456 

Betts  V.  Dimon,  3  Conn.  107,  115,  212 
Betts  V.  State,  66  Ga.  508,  696 

Bettys  V.  Railway  Co., 37  Wis.323,  307 
Betzoldt  V.  American  Ins.  Co.,  47 

Fed.  R.  705,  313,  609 

Beunavista,  etc.,  Co.   v.  Chatta- 
nooga, etc.,  Co.,  87  Ga.  689,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  684,  180 

Beutell  v.  Oliver,  89  Ga.  246,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  307,  436 

Bevan  v.  Havden,  13  la.  122,  1064 
Bevans  v.  Rees,  5  M.  &  W.  306, 

400,  401 
Beverly  v.  Burke,  9  Ga.  440,  S.  C. 

54  Am.  Dec.  351,  259,  1071 

Beverly  v.  Stephens,  17  Ala.  701,  582 
Bevier"y.  Kahn,  111  Ind.  200,  459 

Bevington  v.  Buck,  IS  Ind.  414,  1191 
Bevins  v.  Smith,  42  Kan.  250,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  1064,  1096 

Bevot  V.  Marx,  19  La.  Ann.  491,  1160 
Bibb  v.  Allen,  149  U.  S.  481,  S.  C. 

13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  950,  511 

Bibb  v.  Rei<l.  3  Ala.  88,  178 

Bickel  V.  Dntcher,  35  Neb.  761,  S. 

C.  53  N.  W.  R.  663.  1225 

Bickel  V.  McAleer.  35  Neb.  515,  S. 

C.  53  N.  W.  R.  374.  1140 

Bickford  v.  :Menier.  36  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  446,  531 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,]'!'-  (J0:i-J244.'\ 
Biddel  v.  Brizzolara,  64  Cal.  354,     .383 
Biddle  V.  Black.  99  Pa.  St.  380,       465 
r.i.ldleson  v.Whitel,l  W.BI.507,    1178 
Bidinger  v.  Bishop,  76  Ind.  244, 

544,  738 
Bierlv's  Estate,  81  Pa.  St.  419,  519 
Bigelow  v.  Forrest,  9  Wall.  339,  339 
Bigelow    y.    Maynard,    4     Cush. 

(Mass.)  317,  600 

Bigelow  V.  Newell,  10  Pick.  348,  578 
Bigelow  v.  Sickles,  80  Wis.  98,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  106,  713, 721, 1215 
Bigelow  v.  Sprague,  140  Mass.  425,  656 
Bigelow  V.  Wilson,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 

485,  379 

Bigelow  V.  Young,  .30  Ga.  121,  792 

Bigcs.  Ex  parte,  64  N.  Car.  202,  137 
Biggs  V.  McBride,  17  Ore.  640,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  878,  203 

Bilbv  v.  Townsend,  29  Neb.  220, 

S.C.  45N.  W.  R.619,  1133 

Bill  V.   New  Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  2 

Biss.  390,  195 

Billing  y.  Gilmer,  60 Fed.  R.  332,  1176 
Billines  v.  Billings,  1 10  Mass.  225,  593 
Billings  V.  Kothe.  49  la.  34,  277 

Billings  V.  McCoy,  5  Neb.  187,  1063 
Billings  V.  Noble,  75  Wis.  325,  S. 

C.  43  N.  AV.R.  1131,  635 

Billings  V.  Russell,  23  Pa.  St.  191, 

S.  C.  62  Am.  Dec.  330,  158 

Billings  V.  State,  52  Ark.  303,  799 

Billis  V.  State,  2  McCord  (So.  Car.) 

12,  654 

Bills  y.  Ottumwa,  35  la.  107,  1078 

Billnjis  y.  Brander,  56  Miss.  495,  443 
Billups  y.  Sears,  5  Gratt.  31,  301 

Bingham  v.  Cabot,  3  Dall.  19,  1225 
Bingham  v.  Guthrie,  19  Pa.  St. 418,  582 
Bingham  v.  Stage,  123  Ind.  281, 

1080,  1143,  1220 
Bingham  v.  Stumph,  48  Ind.  97,  1231 
Binsse  v.  Wood,  37  N.Y.  526,  591, 1042 
Birch  V.  Frantz,  77  Ind.  199,  1201 

Birchard  v.  Booth,  4  Wis.  67,  1119 
Bird  v.  Appleton.  1  East  11,  1103 

Bird  v.  Heath,  6  Hare,  236,  1202 

Bird  v.  Lanius,  7  hid.  615,  1089, 1100 
Bird  v.  Norquist,  46  Minn.  318,  S. 

C.  48  N.  AV.  R.  1132,  433,  446 

Bird  y.  State,  107  Ind.  154,  1074 

Birdsall  v.  Russell.  29  N.  Y.  220,  549 
Birdsall  V.Phillips,  17  Wend.  464.  323 
Binlsall  v.  Russell,  29  N.  Y.  220,  1190 
Birkbeckv.Tucker,2Hall  (N.Y.) 

121,  507 

Birmingham,  etc.,  v.  City  of  Bes- 

sen.(  r  (Ala.),  IS  So.  R'.  487,  480 

Birmingham,    etc.,     R'v    Co.     v. 

Halo.  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  752.  519 


lii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Birmingham,  etc.,  Ins.  Co  v.  Pul- 

ver,  V2(i  in.  329,  589 

Birnev  v.  Haim.2  Litt.  (Ky.)  263,  310 
Birtwiiistle  v.  Varthll,  2  Clark  & 

F.  571,  292 

Bish  V.  VanCannon,  94  Ind.  263,  1029 
Bisliplinghoff  v.    Bauer,  52   Ind, 

519,  365 

Bishop  V.  Agricultural  Ins.  Co., 

130  N.  Y.  488,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  K. 

844,  557 

Bishop  V.  Carter,  29  Iowa  165,  111 
Bisliop  V.  Cook,  13  Barb.  326,  1238 
Bishop  V.  Empire,  etc.,  Co.,  5  J. 

&  S.  12,  1146 

Bishop  V.  Moorman,  98  Ind.  1. 

479,  481,  484,  485,  1176 
Bishop  V.Nelson,  83  111.  601,  115,228 
Bishop  V.  Mugler,  33  Kan.  145, 

1111,  1112,  1121 
Bishop  V.  Silver  Lake,  etc.,  Co., 

62  N.  H.  455,  611 

Bishop  V.  State,  9  Ga.  121,  623 

Bishop  V.  Village  of  Goshen,  120 

N.  Y.  337,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  720, 

149,  234,  1147 
Bissell  V.  Briggs,  9  Mass.  462, 

242,  302,  424,  428 
Bissell  V.  Jeffersonville,  24  How. 

(U.  S.)  287,  324 

Bissell  V.  Morgan,  56  Barb.   (N. 

Y.)  369,  600 

Bissell  V.  Spring  Valley,  etc.,  124 

U.  S.  225,  S.  C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  495,  1178 
Bissell  V.  Strong,  9  Pick.  562,  472 

Bisson  V.  Curry,  35  Iowa  72,  195 

Bittain   v.    Kinnaird,    1  Bred.  & 

Bing. 432,  167 

Bitting  V.  Ten  Eyck,  85  Ind.  357, 

494  496 
Bivens  v.  Harper,  59  HI.  21,  '  198 
Bixbe  V.  State,  6  Ohio  80,  664 

Bixbie  v.  Wood,  24  N.  Y.  607,  351 
Bixby  V.  Carskaddon,  70  la.  726, 

S.  C.  29  N.  W.  R.  626,  1065 

Bixby  V.  Smith,  49  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  50,  446 

Bizer  v.  Ottumwa,  etc.,  Co.,  70  la. 

145,  369 

Blachford  V.  Dod,  2  B.  &  Ad.  179,  552 
Blachlock  v.  Stewart,  2  Bay  (S. 

Car.)  .363,  246 

Black  V   Black,  38  Ala.  Ill,  910 

Black  V.  Brisbin,  3  Minn.  360,  S. 

C.  74  Am.  Dec.  762,  470 

Black  V.  Coan,  48  Ind.  385,  390 

Black  V.  Epperson,  40  Tex.  162,  315 
Black  V.  Foster.  28  Barb.  387,  713 

Blafk  V.  Peters,  64  Ga.  628,  1203 

Black  V.  Pratt,  etc., Co.,  85Ala.  504,  385 


l-(i02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Black  V.  Rogers,  75  Mo.  441,    565,  587 
Black  V.  Shreve,  2  Beas.  (N.  J.),    455 
Black  V.  Thomson,  107  Ind.  162,     177 
Black  v.  Ward,   27  Mich.    191,  S. 

C.  15  Am.  R.  162,  957 

Black  V.  Washington,  65  Miss.  60, 

S.  C.  3  So.  R.  140,  111 

Black  River  Lumber  Co,  v.  Warn- 
er, 93  Mo.  374,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R. 

210,  531 

Blackburn  v.  Beall,  21  Md.  208,  721 
Blackburn  v.   Jepson,   3  Swanst. 

132,  1128 

Blackburn  V.  Minter,  22  Ala.  613,  1048 
Blackburn  v.  State,  3  Head.  690, 

214,  216,  235 
Blackett  v.   Bates,   L.  R.,  1  Ch. 

App.  117,  598 

Blackington   v.  Sumner,  69  Me. 

136,  1069 

Blackledge  v.  Pine,  28  Ind.  466, 

669,  676 
Blackledge  v.  Simpson,  2  Hayw. 

(N.  Car.)  30,  S.  C.  2  Am.  Dec. 

614,  596,  600 

Blackman  v.  Bainton,   15  C.   B. 

(N.  S.)  432,  628 

Blackman  v.  Nearing,   43  Conn. 

56,  379 

Blackman  v.  Welsch,  44  Mo.  41,  551 
Blackmar    v.     Van  •  Inwagen,    5 

How.  Pr.  367,  262 

Blackmore  v.  Bank  of  the  State, 

3  Ark.  309,  235 

Blackwell  v.  Bragg,  78  Va.  529,  381 
Blackwell  v.  Goss,  116  Mass.  394,  595 
Blackwell  v.  Smith,  8  Mo.  App. 

43,  112 

Blackwell  v.  State,  30  Tex.  App. 

416,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  597,  666 

Blackwell   v.  Willard,  65  N.  Car. 

555,  336 

Blagg    v.    Phoenix    Ins.    Co.,    3 

Wash.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  5,  620 

Plain  v.  Foster,  33  111.  App.  297,  402 
Blair  V.  Blair,  131  Ind.  194,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.  R.  1076,  1151 

Blair  v.  Cantey,  2  Spear  (S.  C.) 

34,  197 

Blair  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Mo. 

383,.  1176 

Blair  v.  Commonwealth  (Ky.),  20 

S.  W.  R.  434,  1122 

Blair  v.  Hubart,  139  Pa.  St.  96,  S. 

C.  21  Atl.  R.  210,  173 

Blair  V.  Lvnch,  105  N.  Y   636,  S. 

C.  11  N.'E.  R.  947,  537,550 

Blair  v.  Pelham,   118  Mass.  420, 

8,  30,  816 
Blair  v.  Wallace,  21  Cal.  317,  584 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


liii 


[Eeferences  are  to  I'aycs,   I'ol.  I,  pp 
Blair  v.  Wolf,  72  Iowa  24(5,  S.  C.  I 

33  N.  W.  K.  m\),  431  i 

r.laisdell  v.  Blaisdell,  14  N.  II.  78,  580  I 
Jilaisdell  V.  Harris,  52  N.  H.  191,  189  i 
Blake  v.  Brougiiton,  107  N.  Car. 

220,  S.  C.  12  t<.  K.  R.  127,  719 

Blake  v.  Davis,  20  Ohio  231,  1103 

Blake  v.  Everett,  1  Allen  (Mass.) 

248,  797 

Blake  v.  Gale,  L.  R.,  31  Ch.  Div. 

19(5,  37(5 

Blake  v.  Jones,  7  Mass.  28,  613 

Blake  v.  People,  73  N.  Y.  586,         738 
Blake  v.  Powell,  26  Kan.  320, 

179,  704,  783 
Blake  v.  Stewart,  29  Ind.  318,  1200 
Blake  v.  Stump,  73  Md.  160,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  A.  103,  1067,  1075 

Blakelev  v.Frazier,  11  S. Car. 122,    1158 
Blakelyv.  Frazier,  11  S.  Car.  122, 

594,  632 
Blakeman  v.  Blakeman,  31  Minn. 

396,  539 

Blakemore    v.     Glamorganshire 

Canal  Co.,  1  Mylne  &  K.  154,  482 
Blakenev  v.  Dnfaur,  15  Beav.  40,  496 
Blanc  v.'Klumpke,  29  Cal.  156,  560 
Blanc  v.  Paymaster  Mining  Co., 

95  Cal.  524,  S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  R. 

149,  442,  1140 

Blanchard  v.  Bissell,  11  Ohio  St. 

96,  202 

Blanchard  v.  Burrell,  13  Mass.  4, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  106,  281 

Blanchard  v.  Jones,  101  Ind.542,     1081 
Blanchard  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc. ,Ry. 

Co.,  126  111.  416,  S.  C.  18  N.  E. 

R.  799,  378 

Blanchard  v.  :Marray,  15  Vt.  548,    598 
Blanchard  v.  Richlv,  7  Johns. (N. 

Y.) 198,  "  723 

Blanchard  v.  Russell,  13  Mass.  1, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  106,  281 

Blanchard    v.   Young,    11    Cush. 

(.Mass.)  341,  504 

Blanding  V.  Sargent,  33  N.  II.  239,    533 
Blank's  Admr.v.Foushee,  4  Manf. 

61,  1104 

Blankman  v.  Vallejo,  15  Cal.  638,   917 
r.hinton  V.  Dold  (Mo.),  18  S.  W 

K.  1149,  546 

Blanvelt  v.  Ackennan,  20  N.  J. 

K(l.  141,  200 

l-.Ieare  v.  Garlingtnn.92  U.  S.  1,     1128 
lilever  v.  Blnin/70  (4a.  558,  477 

Blight's  Heirs  v.  Banks,  6  T.  B. 

Mon.   (Kv.)   192,  S.  C.  17  Am. 

Dec.  136,  446 

Blilev  v.  Tavlor,  86  Ga.  163,  S.  C. 

13  S.  E.  R.  283,  125,  1213 


.  1-602,  Vol.  IL  pp.  003-1244.'] 
Blin  v.    Hay,  2   Tyler    (Vt.)  304, 

S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec."  738,  591 

Blish  V.  Collins,  13  West.  R.  546,  982 
Bliss,  In  re,  39  Hun  (N.  Y.)  594,  590 
Bliss  v.  Smith,  34  Beav.  508,  407 

Bliss  v.  Thompson,  4  Mass.  488,  520 
Blize  v.  Castlio,  8  Mo.  App.  290,  191 
Blizzard  v.  B.lizzard,  40  Ind.  344,  192 
Blizzard  y.  Havs,  4(;  Ind.  1(56,  1224 
Blizzard  v.  l*lu"hus,;;5  Ind.  284,  1231 
Block  V.  Darling,  140  U.  S.  234,  S. 

C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  832,  1080 

Block  V.  Ehner,  .54  Ind.  544,  1210 

Block  y.  Henderson,   82  Ga.    23, 

S.  C.  8   S.   E.  R.  877,  S.  C.  14 

Am.  St.  R.  138,        145.  259,  342,  343 
Block  V.  State,  100  Ind.  357, 

645,  658,  663 
Blodget  v.  IMorris,  14  N.  Y.  482,  1194 
Blodgett  y.  Prince,  109  Mass.  44,  593 
Blodgett  y.  Schaffer,  94  Mo.  652, 

7  S.  W.  R.  436,  328,  435 

Blondheim  y.  Moore,  11  Md.  365,  195 
Blood  y.  Bates,  31  Vt.  147,  143 

Blood  y.  Fairbanks,  50  (3al.  420,  518 
Bloodheimy.  Moore,  12  :\Id.  365,  488 
Bloom  y.  Burdick,  1  Hill  130,  293 

Bloomer  y.  Sherman,  5  Paige  (N. 

Y.)  575,  586 

Bloomfield  v.  Ketcham,  5  N.  Y. 

Civ.  Proc.  407,  S.C.  95  N. Y.  657,  1138 
Bloomfield  R.   R.  Co.  v.  Burress, 

82  Ind.  83,     .  430 

Bloomington   v.    Osterle,  139   111. 

120,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1068,  794 

Blossom  v.  Barrett,  37  N.  Y.  434,  719 
Blount  V.  State.  30  Fla.  287,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  547,  646,  656 

Blue  v.  Commonwealth,  2  J.  J. 

Marsh.  (Ky  )  26,  455 

Bluev.  Kibbv,  1  T.  B.  Mon.  195, 

S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  95,     782,802,  1168 
Blue  V.  :McCabe,  5  Wash.  125,  S. 

V.  31  Pac.  R.  431,  1114 

Blum   v.  Jones  (Tex.),  23  S.  W. 

R.  844,  720 

Blunt  y.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  234,  781 
Bluntzer    v.    Dewees,   79    Texas 

272,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  29,  405 

Blvdenburgh  v.  Cotheal,  4  N.  Y. 

418.  379 

Blvthe  y    Richards,  10  Sere.  t<c  R. 

260.  S.  C.  13  Am.  Dec.  672,  327 

Board  v.  Bacon,  96  Ind.  31,  1096 

Board  v.  Benson,  83  Ind.  469, 

641,  1230 
Board  v.  Brown,  4  Ind.  App.  288, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  925,  619 

Board  y.  Courtney,  105  Ind.  311. 

206,  232,  640 


liv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eefei-ences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Board  V.  Embree.  7  Blackf.  461,  1235  | 
Board  v.  Uray.  54  Ind.  91,  675 

Board  v.  Gruver.  115  Ind.  224,  S. 

C.  17  N.  E.  R.  290,  528 

Board  v.  Henneberry,  41  111.  179,  403 
Board  v.  Huffman,  134  Ind.  1,  1238 
Board  v.  Leggett,  115  Ind.  544,  318 
Board  v.  Loc-ke,  2  Col.  App.  508, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  351,  1208 

Board  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  109 

U.  S.  221,  1138 

Board  v.  Markle,  46  Ind.  96,  242,  317 
Board  v.   Montgomery,  106  Ind. 

517,  202 

Board  v.  Montgomery,   109  Ind. 

69,  181,  1212,  1223,  1234 

Board  v.  Newman,  35  Ind.  10, 

123,  248,  255 
Board  v.  Pearson,  120  Ind.  426, 
Board  V.  Reynolds,  44  Ind.  509, 
Board  v.  Shipley,  77  Ind.  553, 
Board  v.  Slatter,  52  Ind.  171, 
Board  v.  Small,  61  Ind.  318, 
Board  v.  State,  61  Ind.  75, 
Board  v.  Thompson,  7  Ind.  265, 
Board  v.  Wood,  35  Ind.  70, 
Board,  etc.,  V.   Bunting,   111  Ind. 

143, 
Board,  etc.,v.  Mineral  Point,  etc., 

Co.,  24  Wis.  93,  245,  342 

Board  of  Children's  Guardians  v. 

Shutter  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.  665, 
Board  of  Comm'rs  Shelby  County 

V.  Castetter,  6  Ind.  App.  579,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  986, 
Board   of   Comm'rs  v.  Loeb,    68 

Ind.  29, 
Board  of  Comm'rs  v.  Pearson,  120 

Ind.  426,S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  325,  368 
Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Pabst,  64 

Wis.  244,  1203 

Boardmanv.Beckwith,18Ia.292,  1163 
Boanhnan   v.    Bickford,    2   Aik. 

(Vt.)  345,  464 

Boardman  V.  Griffin,  52  Ind.  101, 

104,  1148 
Boardman   v.   Westchester,   etc., 

Co.,  54  Wis.  364,  815 

Boanlman  v.  Woodman,  47  N.  H. 

120,  679,  740,  807 
Boatmen's  Savings  Bank  v.  Mc- 

Menamy,  35  Mo.  App.  198,  388 

Bobb  V.  Woodward,  42  Mo.  482,  444 
Boddie  v.  State,  52  Ala.  395,  1068 

Bode  V.  Investment  Co.,  6  Dak. 

499,  183 

Bodev.  Investment  Co.,  1  N.  Dak. 

121,  183 
Bodkin    v.    Merit,   102  Ind.  293, 

528,  1132 


1205 

1108 

1143 

363 

182 

1233 

151 

205 

205 

202 


294 


813 
654 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Bodwell  Granite  Co.  v.  Lane,  83 

Me.  168,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  829,        411 
Bogand  v.  Sprott,  37  S.  Car.  605, 

S.  C.  16  S,  E.  R.  35,  1140 

Bogart,  In  re,  2  Sawyer  396,  241 

Bogart  v.  Brown,  5  Pick.  (Mass.) 

iS,  506 

Boggs  v.  Near,  20  Ind.  395,  255 

Boggs  v.  Smith,  53  Cal.  88,  492 

Bogk  V.  Gassert,  149  U.  S.  17,  S. 

C.  13Sup.Ct.R.  738,     1043, 1079, 1220 
Bogle  V.  Gordon,  39  Kan.  31,  S.C. 

]7Pac.  R.  857,  390 

Bogle  V.  Kreitzer,  46  Pa.  S.  465, 

803,  805 
Bogue  V.  Bigelow,  29  Vt.  179,  31 

Bogue  V.  Prentis,  47  Mich.  124,  435 
Bohanan  v.  State,  15  Neb.  209,  1157 
Bohart  v.  Republic,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Kan.  94,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  180,      313 
Boker  v.  Bronson,  5   Blatchf.  5, 

183  1203 
Boker  v.  Chapline,  12  la.  204,  '  315 
Boker  v.  Stonebraker,  36  Mo.  338,  385 
Bolard  v.  Mason,  66  Pa.  St.  138,  456 
Boldt  V.  State,  72  Wis.  7,  S.  C.  35 

N.  W.  R.  935,  S.  C.  38  N.  W.R. 

177,  664 

Bole  V.  Newberger,  81  Ind.  274,  188 
Boles  V.  State,  46  Ala.  204,  804 

Bolin  V.  Francis,  72  la.  619,  451 

Bolin  V.  Simmons,  81  Ind.  92,  1168 
Bolgiano  v.  Gilbert  Lock  Co.,  73 

Md.  132,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  788,  S. 

C.  25  Am.  St.  R.  582,  457,  458 

Boiler  V.  Mayer,  8  Jones  &  Spencer 

(N.  Y.)  523,  154 

Bolles  V.  Duff,  54  Barb.  215,  194 

Bolles  V.  Stearns,  11  Cush.  320,  393 
Boiling  V.  Mayor,  3  Rand.  (Va.) 

563,  1107 

Bollingv.Pace(Ala.),12So.R.796,  558 
Bollinger  v.  Manning,  79  Cal.  7, 

S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  375,  412 

Boll  man,  Ex  parte,  4  Cranch  75,  307 
Bollong  V.  Schuyler   Nat.  Bank, 

26  Neb.  281,  S.C.  3  L.  R.  Anno. 

142,  345 

Bolster  v.  Catterlin,  10  Ind.  117,  350 
Bolton  v.  Brewster,  32  Barb.  389,  314 
Bolton  V.  Jacks,  29  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct. 

166,  314 

Bomar  v.  Parker,  68  Tex.  435,  S. 

C.  4  S.  W.  R.  599,  1178 

Bonahan  v.  Nebraska,  125  U.  S. 

692,  S.  C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1390,       1216 
Bond,  In  re,  9  S.  Car.  80,  S.  C.  30 

Am.  R.  20,  243,  341 

Bond  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  65 

Md.  498,  S.C.  4  Atl.  R.  893,    183, 1199 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


Iv 


l^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vul.  J,  pp 
'Bond  V.  Dustin,  112  U.  S.604,  S. 

C.  5  Sup.  Ct.  K.  2!H),  1170 

Bond  V.  Kplev,  48  Iowa  fiOO,  429 

Bond  V.  Marx,  53  Ala.   177,  1187 

Bond  V.  Nave,  (12  Ind.  aOf),  713,  121(> 
Bond  V.  Ward,  7  Mass.  12:5,  467 

Bond  V.  Wlutlield,  28  (ia.  537,  437 
Bond  V.  Wilson,  8  Kan.  228,  455 

Bondz  V.  Penna.  Co.,  138  Pa.  St. 

153,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  871,  1044 

Bonewitz  v.  Honewitz    (Ohio),  34 

N.  E.  R.  332,  644 

Bonewitz  v.  Wygant,  75  Ind.  41,  1155 
Bonliani   v.    Iowa,   etc.,    Co.,    25 

Iowa  328,  1097 

Bonluun  v.  Mills,  39  Ohio  St.  534,  ms 
Bonic  V.  Maught,  76  Md.  440,  S. 

C.  25  Atl.  R.  423,  1066 

Bonknight  v.  Brown,  16  So.  Car. 

155,  112 

Bonnell  v.  Allen,  53  Ind.  130,  1176 
Bonnell  v.  Holt,  89  111.  71,  443,  610 
Bonner  v.    Beard,  43    La.   Ann. 

1036,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  373,  566 

Bonner  v.  Glenn,  79  Tex.  531,  S. 

C.  15  S.  AV.  R.  572,  824 

Bonner  v.  Hodges,  11  N.  Car.  66, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  881,  1070 

Bonner  v.  State,  7  Ga.  473,  170 

Bonner  v.  Whitcomb,  80  Tex.  178, 

S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  890,  1230 

Bonney  v.  Morrill,  57  Me.  368,  564 
Bonomi  v.  Backhouse,  27  L.  J.  N. 

S.  378,  957,  980 

Bonsack  v.  Roanoke  Co.,  75  Va. 

585,  1156 

Bonsall  v.  Isett,  14  Iowa  309, 

165,  320,  323,  423,  439 
Bonsell  v.  Zigler,  19  Ohio  362,  491 
Bonton  v.  Lvford,  37  N.  H.  512, 

S.  C.  75  Am.  Dee.  144,  606 

Boodv  V.  Watson,  64  N.   H.   162, 

S.  C.  9  Atl.  R.  794,  559 

Booher  v.  Goldsborough,  44  Ind. 

490,  1211 

Booker  v.  State,  76  Ala.  22,  1076 

Boomer  v.  French,  40  Iowa  601,  367 
Boon  V.  Boon,  8  Sm.  &  Mar.  318,  192 
Boon  V.  State,  1  Ga.  631,  660 

Boon  V.  Wealhered,  23  Texas,  675,  803 
Boone  v.   Piiniell,  28   Md.  607,  S. 

C.  92  Am.  Dec.  713,  720 

Booth    V.    Armstrong,    2    "Wash. 

(Va.)  301.  1114 

Booth  V.  Clark.  17  How.  (U.  S.) 

321,  192,303 

Booth   V.   Cottingham,    126    Ind. 

431.  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  84,     111,  1138 
Booth  V.  Farmers'  Bank,  4  Lans. 

301,  1189 


l-aOL',  ]'ol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Booth     V.    Lord    Warrington,    1 

Brown's  Pari.  Cas.  445,  367 

P.oothe  V.  Pastes,  16  Ark.  104,  4(J5 

I'xjots  V.  Canine,  58  Ind.  450,  576 

Boots  V.  Canine,  94  Ind.  408,  576 

Boots  V.  P^erguson,  46  Hun  129, 

354,  375 
Borchus  V.  Huntington,  etc.,  Co., 

97  Ind.  180,  1230 

Borden  v.  Borden,  63  Wis.  374,  437 
Borden  v.   Delaware,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  131  N.  Y.  671,  S.   C.  30  N. 

E.  R.  586,  548 

Borden  v.  Fitch,  15  Johns.  121,  329 
Borden  v.   State,   6  Eng.    (Ark.) 

519,  320,  327 

Borders  v.  Barber,  81  Mo.  636,  513 
Boren  v.  State,  23  Tex.  App.  28,  33 
Borer  v.  Chapman,  1 19  U.  S.  587, 

S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  342,  368 

Borland   v.    Haven,   37   Fed.   R. 

394,  270 

Borrets  v.   Patterson,  Taylor  (N. 

Car.)  37,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  576,  596 
Bors  V.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  252,  119 
Bos  V.  Helshani,L.R.  2  E^xch.  72,  573 
Boslev  V.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  550,  1216,  1221 

Boss  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

2  N.  Dak.  128,  S.  C.  33  Am.  St. 

R. 756,  1078 

Bosseel  v.  Jarvis,  15  Wis.  571,  412 
Bosseker  v.  Cramer,  18  Ind.  44,  1160 
Bostic  V.  State,  94  Ala.  45,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  602,  780 

Bostoc  V.  State,  61  Ga.  635,  815 

Boston  V.  Baldwin,  139  Mass.  315,  (}54 
Boston  V.  Tileston,  11  Mass.  468,  1140 
Boston,  etc., Corp.  v.  Nashua,  etc., 

Corp.,  139  Mass.  463,  S.  C.  31  N. 

E.  R.  751,  585,  595 

Boston  Water  Power  Co.  v.  Grav, 

6  Mete.  (Mass.)  131,  579,  600,  601 
Bostwick  V.  Beach,  IS  Ala.  80,  473 
Bostwick  V.  Dickson,  65  Wis.593,  372 
Bostwick  V.  Lewis,  1  Day's  Cases 

33,  ■  508 

Bostwick  V.  Skinner,  80  HI.  147,  314 
Boswell  V.  Rlackman,  12  Ga.  591,  804 
Boswell  V.  Boswell,  117  Ind.  599,  136 
Boswell  V.  Jones,  1  Wash.  (Va.) 

322,  1161 

Boswell's  Lessee  v.  Otis,  9  How. 

336,  275,  280,  289 

Boswell's  Lessee  v.  Sharp,  15  Ohio 

447,  299 

Botna  Vallev  State  Bank  v.  Silver 

Citv  Bank  (la.).  54N.W.R.472,  438 
Botsford  V.  O'Connor,  57  III.  72,  456 
Bottles  V.  Miller,  112  Ind.  584,        384 


Ivi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eefere7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Boughton  V.  Frere,  3  Camp.  29,       430 
Bouknigbt  v.  Brown,  10  S.  Car. 

155,  1220 

Bouklin    v.   Ewart,  63    Mo.  330, 

146,  164,  325 
Bound  V.  Lathrop,  4  Conn.  336,  384 
Bourke  v.  James,  4  Mich.  336,  560 
Bourne   v.   Hocher,    11   B.   Mon. 

(Ky.)  23,  466 

Bourreseau    v.    Detroit    Evening 

News,  63  Mich.  425,  S.  C.  30  N. 

AV.  R.  376,  540 

Bowden  v.  Crow,  2 Tex.  Civ.  App. 

591,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  612,     584,  602 
Bowden  v.  Hatcher,  83  Ga.  77,  S. 

C.  9  S.  E.  R.  724,  140 

Bowden  v.  Schatzell,  Bailev  Eq. 

(S.  Car.)  360,  198 

Bowden  v.  Wilson,  21  Fla.  165,  237 
Bowe  v.  Hvland,  44  Minn.  88,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  142,  536 

Bowen  v.  Bowen,  74  Ind.  470,  1112 
Bowen  v.  Bragunier,  88  Ind.  558,  1200 
Bowen  v.  Clark,  46  Ind.  405,  400 

Bowen  v.  Fox,  99  N.  Car.  127,  S. 

C.  5  S.  E.  R.  437,  182 

iBowen  v.  Holle,  38  Vt.  574,  401 

,Bowen  v.  Mandeville,  95  N.Y.237,  353 
Bowen  v.  Preston,  48  Ind.  367,  234 
/Bowen  v.  Spears,  20  Ind.  146,  676 

IBowen  v.  Steere,  6  R.  I.  251,  590 

iBowen  v.  Swander,  121  Ind.  164, 
i    S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  725, 
I  234,  371,  640, 1148 

Bowers  v.  Mayo,  32  Minn.  241 ,  179 
Bowers  v.  People,  74  111.  418,  516 

Bowers  v.  Schuler  (Minn.),  55  N. 

W.  R.  817,  520 

Bowers  v.  Smith,  111  Mo.  45,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  101,  527 

Bowerv  Bank  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  63 

N.  Y.  336,  408 

Bowie  V.  Bowie  (Md.),  26  Atl.  R. 

405,  518 

Bowie  v.Brahe,  3  Duer  (N. Y.)  35,  551 
Bowie  v.  City  of  Kansas,  51  Mo. 

4.54,  1180 

Bowlby  v.  Thunder,  105  Pa.  St. 

173,  317 

Bowles  V.  p]]more,  7  Gratt.  (Va.) 

385,  360 

Bowley  v.  Angire,  49  Vt.  41,  469 

Bowlus  V.  Brier,  87  Ind.  391,  1240 

Bowman  v.  Ash,  143  111.649,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  486,  794 

Bowman  v.  Bell,  14  Simons,  392,  496 
Bowman  v.  Sheldon,  5  Sandf .  657, 

1210,  1211 
Bowman  v.  State,  19  Neb.  523,  1158 
Bowman  v.  State,  41  Tex.  417,        666 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Box  v.  Bennett,  1  H.  Black  432, 

1044,  1180 
Bovce  V.  Aubuchon,  34  Mo.  App. 

315,  1159 

Boyce  v.  California  Stage  Co.,  25 

Cal.  460,  1065 

Bovce  V.  Graham,  91  Ind.  420,  1210 
Boyce  v.  Lake,  17  S.  Car.  481,  675 
Boyce's  Ex.  v.  Gundy,  3  Pet.  210,  478 
Boyd  V.  Anderson,  102  Ind.  217  1167 
Boyd  V.  Bank,  25  la.  255.  737 

Boyd  V.  Baynham,5  Humph.  385, 

S.  C.  42  Am.  Dec.  438,  1192 

Boyd  V.  Blaisdell,  15  Ind.  73,  191 

Boyd   V.    Brotherson,    10    Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  93,  539 

Boyd  V.  Chesapeake  Canal  Co.,  17 

Md.  195,  471 

Boyd  V.  Clark,  8  Fed.  R.  849,  S.  C. 

24  Alb.  L.  J.  508,  374 

Bovd  V.  Fitch,  71  Ind.  306,  434,  459 
Boyd  V.  Glass,  34  Ga.  253,  ScC.89 

Am.  Dec.  252,  314 

Boyd  V.  Lowry,  53  Miss.  352,  297 

Boyd  V.  Magruder,  2  Rob.  (Va.) 

761,  583 

Boyd  V.  McFarlin,  58  Ga.  208,  450 
Boyd  V.  Mexico  So.  Bank,  67  Mo. 

537  556 

Boyd'v.  Olvey,  82  Ind.  294,  400 

Boyd  V.    State,    14   Lea    (Tenn.) 

161,  812 

Boyd  V.  State,  17  Ga.  194,  720 

Boyd  V.  Swing,  38  Miss.  182,  335 

Bovd  V.  United  States,  116  U.  S. 

6'16,  S.  C.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  524,  515 

Boyd   V.  Vanderbilt  Ins.   Co.,   5 

Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  6,  588 
Bovd  V.  Weaver  (Ind.),  33  N.  E. 

R.  1027,  485 

Boyd's    Admr.    v.    City    Savings 

Bank,  15  Gratt.  501,  1084 

Bovd's  Estate,  25  Cal.  511,  173 

BoVden  v.  Burke,  14  How.  (U.  S.) 

575,  396 

Bovden  v.  Lamb,  152  Mass.  416, 

S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  609,  589 

Boyden  v.  Moore,  5  Mass.  365,  1160 
Boyer  v.  Berrvman,  123  Ind.  451, 

S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  249,  336 

Boyer  v.  Moore,  42  la.  544,  304,  333 
Boyer  v.  Teague,  106  N.  Car.  576, 

S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  547,  652,  738 
Boykin  v.  Edwards,  21  Ala.  261,  436 
Bovkin   v.  Epstein,  87  Ga.  25,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  15,  486 

Boyland  v.  Meeker,  4  Dutch.  (N. 

J.)  274,  518 

Boyle,  In  re,  9  Wis.  264,  214 

Boyle  v.  Guysinger,  12  Ind.  273,    398 


TA15LE    OF    CASKS. 


Ivii 


[Beferences  are  to  Pay  as,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Bovle  V.  People,  4  Col.  176,  S.  C. 

34  Am.  R.  76,  655,  663 

Boyle  V.  State,  105  Iiid.  4(;0,  S.  C. 

5  N.  P:.  R.  208,  783 

Boyle  V.  Zacharie,  6  Pet.  648,  1128 
Boyles  v.  Bovles,  37  Iowa  592, 

243,  274 
Boynton  v.   Foster,  7  Mete.  415, 

253,  347,  492 
Boynton  v.  Moulton  (Mass.),  34 

N.  E.  R.  361,  383 

Bovntou  V.  Trnnibnll,  45  X.  H. 

408,  1120 

Boynton  v.  AVarren,  99  Mass.  172,  468 
Boys  V.  Simmons,  72  In«l.  593,  332 
Bozeman  v.  Browning,  31  Ark. 

364,  381 

Brace  v.  Evens  (Pa.),  3  R.  R.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  561,  483 

Brackartv.  Nikirk,20Ill.  App.525,  613 
Bracken  v.  :\IcAlvey,  421,  S.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  1022,  377 

Brackettv.  Cunninehani,44  Minn. 

498,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  157,  1129 

Brackett  v.  Evans,  1  Cash.  79,  392 
Brackett  v.  Norton,  4  Conn.  517,  545 
Bradbury  v.  Conv,  62  Me.  223,  S. 

C.  16  Am.  R.  449,  662 

Bradburv  v.  Doughertv,  7  Blackf. 

(Ind.)'467,  '  618 

Braddick  v. Thompson,  8  East  344,  593 
Braden  v.  Lemmon,  127  Ind.  9,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  476,  1146 

Bradfleld  v.  McCormick,  3  Blackf. 

161,  392 

Bradford  v.  Andrews,  20  Ohio  St. 

208,  378 

Bradford  v.  Barclay,  39  Ala.  33,  801 
Bradford  v.  Buchanan  (S.  Car.), 

17  S.  E.  R.  501,  1137 

Bradford  v.  Cooper,  1  La.  Ann. 

325,  510 

Bradford    v.    Gillespie,    8    Dana 

(Kv.)  67,  467 

Bradford  v.  Hamilton,  7  Tex.  55,  1046 
Bradford  v.  S.  Car.  R.  R.  Co.,  7 

Rich.  L.  201,  537 

Bradlev  v.  Aldrich,  40  N.  Y.  504,  1131 
Bradley  v.  Bradley,  45  Ind.  67,  1094 
Bradley  v.  Clark,  1  Cusli.  (Mass.) 

293,  675,  677 

Bradlev  v.  Farrineton,  4  Ark.532,  393 
Bradlev  v.  Fisherr  13  Wall.  U.  S. 

335,  ■  424,  428 

Bradlev  v.  Geiselman,  17  111.  571,  512 
Bra(ilev  v.  Jamison,  46  la.  68,  298 
Bradlev  v.  Mo.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  91 

Mo.  493,  361 

Bradlev  v.  Palen,  78  la.  126,  S.  C. 

42  N:  W.  R.  623,  719 


1-(J02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  GOS-1244.'] 

Bradlev  v.  Poole,  98  Mass.  169,  1033 
Bradley  v.  West,  60  Mo.  33,  370 

Bradsiiaw  v.  Davis,  12  Texas  336,  402 
Bradshaw   v.    Hubbard,   1  Gilm. 

(111.)  390,  659 

Bradshaw  v.  State,  17  Neb.  147,  S. 

C.  22N.  W.  R.  361,  823 

Bradshaw  v.  VanWinkle,  133  Ind. 

134,  1133 

Bradstreet,  Ex  parte,  4  Pet.  102,  1242 
Bradstreet  v.  Erkine,  50  I\Ie.  407,  592 
Bradstreet  v.  The  Neptune  Co.,  3 

Sumn.  600,  276 

Bradstreet  Co.  v.  Gill,  72  Tex.  115, 

9  S.  W.  R.  753,  S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A. 

405,  531 

Bradwav  v.  Waddell,  95  Ind.  170, 

1060,  1227 
Bradwell  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co., 

139  Pa.  St.  404,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R. 

1046,  152,  1213 

Bradv  v.  Burke,  90  Cal.  1,  347 

Bradv  v.  Feisil,  54  Cal.  180,  1161 

Bradv  v.  Malone,  4  Iowa  146,  622 

Bradv  v.  Mavor,  1  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

584,  581 

Braid  v.    Crutchfield,   6  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  171,  602 

Brainard  v.  Simmons,  58  la.  464, 

472,  1223 
Brakken  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  29  Minn.  41,  813 

Bralv  V.  Breese,  51  Cal.  447,  128 

Braly  v.  Seaman,  30  Cal.  610,  447 

Bramblett  v.  Pickett,  2  A.  K.  Mar. 

10,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  350,     187,  188 
Brannenberg  v.  Indianapolis,  etc., 

13  Ind.  103,  301 

Branchardiere  v.  Elverv,  4  Exch. 

380,  S.  C.  18L.  J.E.381,  1138 

Branch  v.  Planters,  etc..  Bank,  75 

Ga.  342,  '  365 

Branch  Bank  v.  Moseley,  19  Ala. 

222,  1235 

Brand  v.  State,  3  Ind.  App.  469, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1030,  1211 

Brand  v.  Longstre'H,4  N.  J.  L.  325,  719 
Brandon  v.  Planters,  etc..  Bank, 

1  Stew.  320,  1034 

Brandt  v.  ^McDowell.  52  la.  230,  619 
Brandt  v.  R.  R.  Co..  26  la.  114.  400 
Branford  v.  Erant.  1  N.  :Mex.  579,  1184 
Branger  v.  Bnttrick,  2S  Wis.  450,  1166 
Branham  v.  Brown,  1  Bailev  (S. 

Car.)  262,  1046 

Branner  v. Chapman,  11  Kan. 118,  436 
Brannon  v.  May,  42  Ind.  92,  1098 

Branson  v.  Studabaker,  133  Ind. 

147,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  98, 

117, 119, 124, 254, 348, 1106, 1108, 1115 


Iviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IReferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Branwell  v.  Penneck,  7  B.  &  C. 

53(3,  322 

Brasen  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  4 

Wash.  754,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  34,  1082 
Brashear  v.  Mason,  6  How.  (IJ. 

S.)  92,  251 

Brashear  v.  West,  7  Pet.   (U.  S.) 

(i08,  470 

Brashier  v.  Tolleth,  31  Neb.  622, 

S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  398,  365 

Brauns  v.  Stearns,  1  Ore.  367,  178 

Brav  V.  Doheny,  39  Minn.  355,  1169 
BraV  V.  English,  1  Conn.  498,  586,  593 
Bray  v.  Laird,  44  Ala.  295,  1183 

Braydon  v.  Goulman,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  115,  705 

Brayton  v.  Freese,  1  Ind.  121,  557 
Brazier  v.  State,  44  Ala.  387,  643 

Brazil,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hoodlet,  129 

Ind.  327,  1106 

Brazil  v.  Isham,  12  N.  Y.  9,  597 

Brazil  v.  Peterson,  44  Minn.  212, 

S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  331,  1161 

Brazil  Block  Coal  Co.  v.  Gaffney, 

119  Ind.  455,  S.  C.  12  Am.  St. 

R.  422,  1211 

Breckenridge  v.  Churchill,  3  J.  J. 

Marsh.  (Ky.)  11,  370 

Breed  v.Hurd,  6  Pick. (Mass.)356,  401 
Breedlove  v.  Bundy,  96  Ind.  319,  707 
Breese  v.  State,  12  Ohio  St.  146,  1067 
Breeze  v.  Trenton  Horse  Co.,  52 

N.J.L.  250,  S.C.  19Atl.R.  204,  527 
P.reitenbach  v.Turner,18  Wis. 140,  403 
Bremmer  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  Co., 

61  Wis.  114,  821 

Bremmermanv. Jennings, 101  Ind. 

253,  71 

Brenan  v.  Wallace,  25  Cal.  108,  543 
Brenner  v.  Bigelow,  8  Kan.  496, 

104,  1148 
Brenner  v.  Moyer,  98  Pa.  St.  274,  469 
Brenner  v.  Quick,  88  Ind.  546,  361 
Brent  v.  Heard,  40  Miss.  370,  624 

Brentlinger     v.     Hutchinson,     1 

Watts.  (Pa.)  46,  544 

Brenzer  v.  Wightman,  7  Watts. 

&  S.  (Pa.)  264,  555 

Bvessler  v.  People,  117  111.  422,  1071 
Bressler  V.  Banm,  42  111.  App.  190,  518 
Brewer  V.  Fleming,  51  Pa.  St.  102,  404 
Brewer  v.  Porch,  2  Harr.  (N.J.) 

377,  796 

Brewer  v.  Railroad  Co.,  113  Mass. 

52,  202 

Brewery.  State,  74Tenn.  198,  143, 164 
Brewer   v.    State,  .32  Tex.  Crim. 

App.  74,  S.  C.  22S.  W.  R.  41,  1165 
Brewington  y.  Lowe,  1    Ind.  21. 

248,  ii:;7 


,  I-60'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Brewster    y.    Hobart,    15    Pick. 

(Mass.)  302,  360 

Brewster  y .  Ludekins,  19  Cal.  162,  429 
Briariield,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Foster,  54 

Ala.  622,  195 

Brice  y.  Bauer,  108  N.  Y.  428,  S. 

C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  454,  569 

Brickery.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

83  Mo.  391,  1114 

Brickey  y.  Irwin,  122  Ind.  51,  S.  C. 

23  N.  E.  R.  694,  387 

Brickley  y.  Edwards,  131  Ind.  3, 

S.  C.  30N.  E.  R.  708,  1212 

Brickley  y.Weghorn,  71  Ind.  497,  1154 
Bridge  y.  Gray,  14  Pick.  (Mass.) 

55,  384 

Bridgeport  Bank  y.  NewYork,etc., 

Co.,  30  Conn.  231,  395 

Bridgeport  Sayings  Bank  v.  Eld- 

redge,   28   Conn.   556,  S.  C.  73 

Am.  Dec.  688,  266 

Bridger  y.  Asheyille  R.  R.  Co.,  25 

S.  Car.  24,  1069 

Bridges,  Ex  parte,  2  Woods,  428,  308 
Bridges  y.  Armour,  5  How.   (U. 

S.)  91,  520 

Bridges  y.  Arnold,  37  la.  221,  456 

Bridges  y.  Clay  County  Superyi- 

sors,  57  Miss.  252,  340 

Bridges   y.  Shallcross,  6   W.  Va. 

562,  203 

Bridges  y.  Smyth,  8  Bing.  29,  189 

Bridgewater  Gas  Co.   y.   Home, 

etc.,  Co.,  59  Fed.  R.  40,  1081 

Bridgham's  Appeal,  82  Me.  323,  513 
Briggs'  Appeal,  93  Pa.  St.  485,  386 
Briggs  y.  Davis,  34  Me.  158,  604 

Briggs  y.  Finn,  10  la.  590,  453 

Briggs  y.  French,  2  Sumn.251,  311 
Briggs  y.    Hilton,   99  N.  Y.  517, 

1115,  1120 
Briggs  y.  Hogdon,  78  Me.  514,  435 
Briggs  y.  Holmes,  118  Pa.  St.  283, 

S.  C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  597,  550 

Briggs  y.  Minneapolis  Street  Ry. 

Co.,  52  Minn.  36,  S.  C.  53  N.  W. 

R.  1019,  740 

Briggs   y.    Morgan,  3   Phillmore, 

325,  S.  C.  1   Eng.  Ecc.  408,  808 

Bviggs  y.  Sholes,  14  N.  H.  262,  1195 
Briggs   y.    Sneghan,    45   Ind.  14, 

432,  454,  1199 
Briggs  y.  Taylor,  35  Vt,  57,  800 

Briggs  y.  Waldron,  83  N.  Y.  582,  1051 
Brigham    y.    Fayerweather,    140 

Mass.  413,  271 

Bright  V.  Hutton,  12  Law  and  Eq. 

Rei).  1,  954 

J'rightwell  y.    McLane,    11    Ind. 

210,  1217 


TAIJLK    OF    CASI'JS. 


lix 


[Eefe7-P7u:es  are  to  Paties,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Brine  v.  Ins.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  627, 

270,  284 
Brink  v.  Reid,  122  Ind.  257,  110 

Brinklev   v.    Brinkley,  47  N.  Y. 

40,      "  121(5 

Briscoe  v.  Branough,  1  Tex.  326,  498 
Briscoe  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  40 

Fed.  R.  273,  312 

I'.ristor  v.  Oialvin,  62  Ind.  352,  1200 
Britt  V.  Bradsluiw,  18  Ark.  530,  473 
Brittain  v.   Allen,  2  Dev.  L.  (N. 

Car.)  120,  654,  656 

Brittain  v.   Kinnaird,  1  Brod.  & 

Bing.  432,  323,  325 

Britton  v.  Fox,  39  Ind.  369,  214,  1111 
Britton  v.  Larson,  23  Neb.  806,  S. 

C.  37  N.  W.  R.  681,  445,  452 

Britton     v.    Williams,    6    Munf. 

(Va.)  453,  581 

Brock  V.  Garrett,  16  Ga.  487,  1160 

Brock  V.  King,  3  Jones  (N.  Car. 

L.)  45,  547 

Brock  V.  South  &  N.  Ala.  R.  R. 

Co.,  65  Ala.  79,  619 

Brockbank  v.  Anderson,  7  Scott 

N.  R.  813,  S.  C.  13  L.  J.  C.  P. 

102,  1139 

Brockbank  v.  Anderson,  7  Man. 

&  Gr.  295,  517 

Brockett  v.  Brockett,  3  How.  (U. 

S.)  691,  1205 

Brockett  v.    Steamboat    Co.,    18 

Fed.  R.  156,  720 

Brockley  v.  Brockley,  122  Pa.  St. 

1,  565 

Brockway  v.  Patterson,  72  Mich. 

122,  S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A.  708,  657,  661 
Broderick's  AVill,  21  Wall.  503,  263 
Bronenberg  V.  Board,  41  Ind.  502,  487 
Bronnenburg  v.  Coburn,  110  Ind. 

169,  S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  29,  1064, 1068 
Bronson  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Wall.  405,  254,  492 

Bronson  v.  Rodes,  7  Wall.  229,  1192 
Brookbanks  v.  State,  55  Ind.  169,  806 
Brooke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

81  la.  504,  812 

Brooker  v.  Weber,  41  Ind.  426,  1093 
Brookes  v.  Tichborne,  2  Eng.  L. 

&.  Eq.  374,  35 

Brooklyn  v.  Breslin,  57N.  Y.591,  545 
Brooklyn  v.  Insurance  Co.,  99  U. 

S.  362,  284 

Brooklyn  v.  Mayor,  25  Hun  612,  119 
Brooklyn  Bank  v.    DeGrauw,  23 

Wend.    (N.    Y.)    342,   S.  C.  35 

Am.  Dec.  569,  402 

Brooks  y.  Boswell,  34  ls\o.  474,  173 
Brooks  V.  Bruyn,  35  111.  392,  655 

Brooks  V.  Cook,  8  Mass,  2 16,    198,  471 


1-002,  Vol.  IT.  pp.  003-1244.] 
Brooks  V.  Duck\v(jrth,  59  Mo.  48,     314 
Brooks  V.  Dutcher,  22  Neb.  644,  S. 

C.  36  N.  W.  R.  128,  1079 

Brooks  V.  Hall,  36  Kan.  697,  566 

Brooks  V.  Hubbanl,  3  Conn.  58,  389 
Brooks  V.  New  Durliam,  55  N.  H. 

,559,  582 

Brooks  V.  O'llara,  8  Fed.  R.  529,  486 
Brooks  V.  Perry,  23  Ark.  32,  178,  179 
Brooks  V.  Standard,  etc.,  Co.,  11 

Mo.  A  pp.  349,  1160 

Brooks  V.  State,  90  Ind.  428,  1072 

Brooks  V.   Stephens,  100  N.  Car. 

297,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  81,  187 

Brooks  V.  Tarbell,  103  Mass.  496,  1128 
Brooks  V.  Weeks,  121  Mass.  433,  794 
Brophy  y.  Bartlett,  108  N.Y.632, 

S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  368,  535 

Brophy   v.   Brunswick,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Wvo.  Ter.  86,  1201 

Broughton  v.  Bradley,  34  Ala.  694, 

S.  C.  73  Am.  Dec.  474,  335 

Brouillette  y.  Judge,  45  La.  Ann. 

243,  S.  C.  12  So.  R.  134,  630 

Brotherline  y.  Hammond,  69  Pa. 

St.  128,  31 

Brothers  y.  Higgins,  5  J.  J.  Mar. 

658,  1180 

Brouwer  y.  Hill,  1  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 

629,  544 

Brow  V.  Levy,  3  Ind.  App.  Ct.  464,  629 
Brow  y.  State,  103  Ind.  133,  820 

Broward  y.  Doggett,  2  Fla.  49,  539 
Browder  y.  State,   30  Tex.  App. 

614,  698 

Brower  y.  Edson,  47  Mich.  91,  548 
Brower  y.  Osterhout,  7  Watts.  & 

S.  (Pa.)  344,  582 

Brown  y.  Ashbough.  40  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  260,  464 

Brown  y.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.,  31 

Kan.  1,  1025 

Brown  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

S.  Car.  39,  19 

Brown  y.  Aurora,  109  111.  165,  526 
Brown  v.  Bellows,  4  Pick. (Mass.) 

179,  591,  795 

Brown  y.  Board,  etc.,   50  Miss. 

468,  424 

Brown  v.  Brown,  53  Wis.  29,  185 

Brown  y.  Brown.  86  Tenn.  277,  274 
Brown  y.  Buck,  75  ]\Iich.  274,  S. 

C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  438,  348,  1241 

Brown  y.  Burkenmeyer,  9  Dana 

(Ky.)  159.  S.C.  33  Am. Dec.  541,    598 
Brown   y.  Buckingham,  11   Abb. 

Pr.  (N.Y.)  3S7,  ^  529 

Brown  v.  Burrus,  8  Mo.  26,  1161 

Brown  y.  Buzan.  24  Ind.  194.  226,  2.34 
Brown  v.  Byrne,  Walker's  Ch.  453,  200 


Ix 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Befcrences  arc  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pi^ 
Brown  v.  Calumet  River  Ry.  Co., 

125  111.  600,  800 

Brown  v.  Caraway,  47  Miss.  668,  297 
Brown  v.  Cent.  Fac.  R.  R.  Co.,  72 

Cal.  523,  S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  512,  1094 
Brown  v.  City  of  Denver,  7  Col. 

305,  121,  425 

Brown  v.  Clarke,  4  How.  4, 

196,  1224,  1236 
Brown  v.  Clay,  31  Me.  518,  578 

Brown  v.  Cocking,  L.  R.,  3  Q.  B. 

672,  267 

Brown  v.  Cody,  115  Ind.  484,  S. 

C.  18  N.  E.  R.  9,  1161 

Brown  v.  Cole,  45  la.  601,  1124 

Brown  v.  Commonwealth,  144  U. 

S.  573,  S.  C.  12  Sup.Ct.R.  757,  1170 
Brown  v.  Commonwealth,  76  Pa. 

St.  319,  30 

Brown  v.  Corbin,  40  Minn.  508,  S. 

C.  42  N.  W.  R.  481,  446 

Brown  v.  Darrah,  95  Ind.  86,  1178 
Brown  v.  Deere,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Fed. 

R.  487,  491,  492 

Brown  v.  Denver,  7  Col.  305,  170 

Brown  v. Desmond,  100  Mass.267,  280 
Brown  v.  Dvsinger,  1  Rawle  (Pa.) 

408,  '  399 

Brown  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  11 

Cush.  (Mass.)  97,  548 

Brown  v.  Eaton,  98  Ind.  591,  133,  714 
Brown  v.  Edgerton,  14  Neb.  453,  1181 
Brown  v.  Ferguson,  4  Leigh  (Va.) 

37,  110? 

Brown  v.  Fleming,  3  Ark.  284,  217 
Brown  v.  Foster  (S.  Car.),  19  S. 

E.  R.  299,  1079 

Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8  Greenl.  (Me.) 

107,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  223,  400,  40i 
Brown  v.  Goble,  97  Ind.  86,  342,  426 
Brown  v.  Goodvear,  29  Neb.  376, 

S.  C.  45  N.  W'.  R.  618,  454 

Brown  v.  Goolsby,  .34  Miss.  437,  378 
Brown  v.  Green,  7  Conn.  536,  600 

Brown  v.  Grove,  116  Ind.  84,  S.  C. 

9  Am.  St.  R.  823,  1160,1161 

Brown  v.  Haff,  5  Paige  235,  S.  C. 

28  Am.  Dec.  425,  478 

Brown  v.  Haines,  12  Ohio  1,  300,  345 
Brown  v.  Hall,  85  Va.  146,  S.  C.  7 

S.  E.  R.  182,  1224,  1232 

Brown  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.   ' 

Co.,  66  I\ro.  588,  1074 

Brown  v.  Harris,  2  G.  Greene  505, 

S.  C.  52  Am.  Dec.  535,  469 

Brown  v.  Hendersons,  4  Munf. 

(Va.)  292,  1116 

Brown  v.  Hickie,  68  la.  3.30,  1160 

Brown   v.    Hillegas,   2    Hill   (So. 
Car.)  447,  1108,  1154 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Brown  v.  Home  Savings  Bank,  5 

Mo.  App.  1,  110,  1130 

Brown  v.  Howard,  4  Moore  508,     369 
Brown    v.    Kalamazoo,    etc.,    75 

Mich.  274,  1127 

BroM-n  v.  Keyser,  53  Ind.  86,        1182 
Brown  v.  Kincaid,  Wright  (Ohio) 

37,  576 

Brown    v.    Kirkbridge,    19  Kan. 

588,  1178 

Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me.  251, 

585,  586,  590,  593 
Brown  v.  Lunt,  37  Me.  423,  214,  215 
Brown  v.  Mahan,  4  J.  J.  Marsh. 

(Ky.)  59,  452 

Brown  v.  Mass.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  59 

N.  H.  298,  S.  C.  13  Ins.  L.  Jour. 

208,  1041,  1042 

Brown  v.  McCollum,  76  Iowa  479, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  197,  541 

Brown  v.  McCormick,  23  Mo.  App. 

181,  543 

Brown  v.  McGrau,  14  Pet.  (U.S.) 

493,  537 

Brown  v.  Metz,  33  111.  339,  32 

Brown  v.  Minneapolis,    etc.,    25 

Minn.  461,  112 

Brown   v.   Mitchell,  102  N.  Car. 

347,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  748,        540 
Brown  v.  Moores,  6  Gray  (Mass.) 

451,  807 

Brown  v.  Mott,  22  O.  St.  149,        1139 
Brown  v.Newby,  6  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

395  161 

Brown  v.  Nichols,  42  N.  Y.  26,        605 
Brown  v.    O'Connell,   36    Conn. 

432,  216 

Brown  v,  Ohio  &  M.   Ry.   Co., 

(Ind.),35N.  E.R.  503,  1095 

Brown  v.  People,   8  Hun   (N.  Y.) 

562,  781 

Brown  v.  Peters,  94  Ala.  459,  S. 

C.  10  So.  R.  2G1,  344 

r.rown  V.  Railroad  Co.,  18  N.  Y. 

495,  1199 

Brown  v.  Ralston,  4  Rand.  (Va.) 

504,  1103 

Brown  v.  Ranch,  1  Wash.  498,  S. 

C.  20  Pac.  R.  785,  410 

Brown  v.  Rhodes,  1  Kan.  359,       1236 
Brown  v.  Rice,  30  Neb.  236,  S.  C. 

46  N.  W.  R.  489,  613 

Brown  v.  Rogers,  61  Ind.  449,       1139 
Brown  v.  Searle,  104  Ind.  218,  S. 

C.  3  N.  E.  R.  871,  1173 

Brown  v.  Shields,  6  Leigh  440,       1172 
Brown  v.  Simpson,  3  Stew.  (Ala.) 

301  432 

Brown  v.  Spevers,  20  Gratt.  296,    1161 
Brown  v.  Stark,  83  Cal.  636,  544 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixi 


[^Beferences  are  to  Parjes,  I'o/.  /,  pp 
Brown  v.  State,  24  Ark.  (;2(),  518 

Brown  v.  State  (Tex.),20  S.W.  K. 

924,  780 

Brown  v.  State,  60  Miss.  447,  (568 

Brown  v.  State,  29  Flu.  494,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  736,  1223 

Brown  v.  State,  70  Ind.  570,  666 

Brown  v.  State,  71  Ind.  470,  524 

Brown  v.  State,  57  Miss.  424,  S.  C. 

10  Cent.  L.  Jour.  376,  646,666 

lirown  V.  State,  18  Ohio  St.  496,  629 
Brown  v.  State,  72  Md.  468,  800 

Brown  v.  State,  89  Ga.  340,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  462,  644 

Brown  V.  State,  79  Ala.  61,  802 

Brown  v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  115,  1071 
Brown  v.  Stoerkel,  74  Mich.  269, 

S.  C.  3L.  R.  A.430,  1096 

Brown  v.  Swineford,  44  Wis.  272, 

S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  583,  S.C.  7  Cent. 

L.  Jour.  208,  678,  820,  823 

Brown  v.  Thomson,  31  S.  Car.  436, 

S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  95,  531 

Brown  v.  Tucker,  7  Col.  30,  298 

Brown  v.  Union  Tel.  Co.,  6  Utah 

219,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  988,  559 

Brown  v.  United  States,  14  Am. 

L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  566,  308 

Brown  v.  United  States,  etc..  As- 
sociation, 13  S.W.  R.  1085,     186,610 
Brown  v.  Walker  (Miss.),  11  So. 

R.  724,  1066 

Brown  v.  Warren,  17  Nev.  417,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  1078,  625 

Brownv. Webber,  6  Cush.  (Mass.) 

560,  454,  612 

Brown  v.  AVelcker,  1  Cold.  197,  586 
Brown  v.  Wentworth,  46   N.  H. 

490,  S.  C.  88  Am.  Dec.  223,         1040 
Brown  v.  West,  65  N.  H.  187,  S. 

C.  18  Atl.  233,  192 

Brown  v.  Wheeler,  18  Conn.  199,  659 
Brown  v.  Wheeler,  17  Conn.  345 

S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  550,  584 

Brown  v.  Wheelock,  75  Tex.  385, 

S.  C.  12S.  W.  R.  m,  295 

Brown  v.  Will,  103  Ind.  71.  1148 

Brown  v.  Willev,  42  Pa.  St.  205,  533 
Brown  v.  Williams,  31  Me.  403.  468 
Brown  v.Winans,  11  N.J.  Eq.  267,  490 
Brown  v.  Wood.  19  Mo.  475,  794 

F^rown  v.  Woodman.  6  C.  &  P.  206.  502 
l>rown  Y.Woodv.  (54  :\Io.  547,  245,  328 
Browne  v.  Hickie,  68  Iowa,  330,  544 
Browne  v.  Murray,  21  Eng.  C.  L. 

745,  ■  705 

Brownell  v.  Greenwich,  114  N.  Y. 

518,  1137 

Brownfield  v.  Brownfield,  151  Pa. 

St.  565,  S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  92,  1212,  1218 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00.3-7244.] 
Browntield  V.  Dyer,  7  Hush.  (Kv.) 

505,  433, 44C 

Brownfield  v.  Weicht,  9  Ind.  394, 

259,  315,  318 
Browning  v.  Might,   78  Ind.  257, 

1068,  1115 
Browning  v.  Roane,   9   Ark.  354, 

S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  218,  1200 

Browning  v.  Wheeler,  24  Wend. 

(N.Y.)258,S.C.35Am.Dec.617;  5i>2 
Brownlee  v.  Board,  101  Ind.  401,  191 
Brownlee  v.   Davidson,   28  Neb. 

785,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  51,  187 

Brownlee  v.  Hare,  64  Ind.  311, 

1143,  1171 
Brownsville  v.  Basse,  43  Tex.  440,  241 
Brubaker  v.  Okeson,  36 Pa.  St.  519,  539 
Bruce  v.  Cloutman,  45  N.  H.  37,  463 
Bruce  v.  Conyers,  54  Ga.  678,  469 

Bruce  v.  Doolittle.  81  111.  103,  155 

Bruce  v.  Holden,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 

187,  455 

Bruce  V.  Schuvler,  4  Gilm.  (111.) 

221,  '  202 

Bruce  v.  Tilson,  25  N.  Y.  194,  360,403 
Bruce   v.    Westervelt,     2    E.    D. 

Smith,  440,  1225 

Bruen  v.  Bokee,  4  Denio  56,  S.  C. 

47  Am.  Dec.  239,  443 

Bruen  v.  Bruen,  43  111.  408,  640 

Bruil  V.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co., 

72  Wis.  430,  S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R. 

529,  313 

Bruker  v.  Kelsey,  72  Ind.  51,  1169 
BrundjJe  v. Brown,  71  N.  Car.  513,  375 
Brumlev  v.  State,  20  Ark.  78, 

116,  142,  145 
Brumskill  v.  James,  11  N.  Y.  294,  509 
Brunkerv.  Cummins,  133Ind.443,  738 
Brunswig  v.  White,  70  Texas  504, 

S.  C.  8  S.  W.  R.  85.  559 

Brush  v.  Fisher,  70  Mich.  469,  S. 

C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  510,      578,  594,  599 
Brush  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Elec- 
tric Imp.  Co., 51  Fed.  R.  557,      1187 
Brusie  v.  Peck,  62  Hun  248,  S.  C. 

16  N.  Y.  Supl.  645.  185 

Brvan  v.  Austin,  10  La.  Ann.  612,  224 
Bryan  v.  Berry.  8  Cal.  130,  253,  492 
Bryan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,R.  R.  Co., 

63  la.  464,  10(>8 

BrVan  v.  Dean.  63  Ga.  317,  474 

Brvan  v.  Fancett.  65  N.  C.  650,  33 

Bryan  v.  Jeffreys.  104  N.  Car.  242, 

S.  C.  10  S.  E!  R.  167.  574 

Bryan  v.  State.  4  Iowa  349,  64t 

Brvan  v.  Walton.  14  Ga.  185.  801 

Brvan  v.  Watson.  20  Ga.  480,  705 

Brvan  it  B.  Shoe  Co.  v.  Block,  52 

Ark.  458,  353 


Ixii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Paoes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Brvant  v.  Ballance,  66  111.  188,         134 
Bryant  v.  Crosby,  40  Me.  9,  1064 

Brvant  v.  McClure,  44  Mo.  App. 

o53,  313 

Brvant  v.  Moore,  26  Me.  84,  532 

Brvant  v.  People,  71  111.  32,  256 

Bryant  v.  Tidgewell,  133  Mass.  86,  807 
BrVden  v.  Bryden,  11  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  187,  555 

Brydolf  v.  Wolf,  32  Iowa  509,  437 
Bryorly  v.  Clark,  48  Tex.  345,  1167 
Buchanan  v.  Berkshire  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  96  Ind.  510,  412 

Buchanan   v.   Chicago,  etc.,  Rv. 

Co.,  75  Iowa  393,  '     739 

Buchanan  v.  Comstock,  57  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  568,  496 

Buchanan  v.  Curry,  19  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  137,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  200,  583 
Buchanan  v.  Howland,  5  Blatchf . 

151,  485 

Buchanan  v.  Milligan,    108   Ind. 

433,  1107,  1147 

Buchanan  v.  Port,  5  Ind.  264,  638 

Buchanan  v.  Roy,  2  Ohio  St.  251, 

430,  431 
Buchanan  v.  Townsend,  80  Tex. 

534,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  315,  1155 

Buchanan  v.  Wise  (Neb.),  52  N. 

W.  R.  163,  505 

Buck  V.  Beekly,  45  111.  100,  161 

Buck  V.  Citv  of  Eureka,  97  Cal. 

637,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  845,  634 

Buck  V.  Dowley,  16  Grav  555,  297 

Buck  V.  Little,  24  Miss.  463,  1193 

Buckv.Wadsworth,  1  Hill  (N.Y.), 

321,  596 

Buckeve  Township   v.  Clark,  90 

Mich.  432,  S.C.  51  N.W.  R.  528,  352 
Buckingham  v.  Davis,  9  Md.  324,  220 
Buckinghouse   v.  Gregg,  19   Ind. 

401,  163 

Buckland   v.    Conway,    16   Mass. 

396,  581,  582 

Buckley  v.  Artcher,  21  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  585,  540 

Buckley  v.  Buckley,  12  Nev.  423,  783 
Buckley  v.  Garrett,  47  Pa.  St.  204,  557 
Bucklin  v.  Ford,  5  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

393,  380 

Bucklin  v.  State,  20  Ohio  18,  804 

Bucklin  v.  Strickler,  32  Neb.  602, 

S.C.49N.W.R.371,  607,612,613 
Buckmaster  v.  Cool,  12  111.  74,  1229 
Buckminster  v.   Perry,    4   Mass. 

593,  679 

Buckner  V.  Com.,  14  Bush.  (Ky.) 

603,  543 

Buckwalter  v.  Russell,  119  Pa.  St. 

495,  586,  599 


1-602,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Budd  v.  State,  3  Humph.  483,  121 

Buel  V.  Pumphrey,  2  Md.  261,  S. 

C.  56  Am.  Dec.  714,  396 

Buell  V.  Dodge,  57  Cal.  645,  628 

Buell  V.  State,  72  Ind.  523,  164 

Buetzierv.  Jones,  85  la.  — ,S.  C. 

51  N.  W.  R.  242,  1092 

Buffalo  v.  Holloway,  7  N.  Y.  493,  527 
Buffalo,   etc.,    Co.   v.    Delaware, 

etc.,  Co.,  130  N.  Y.  152,  S.  C.  29 

N.  E.  R.  121,  262,  1130 

Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ferris,  26  Tex. 

588,  1129 

Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phillips,  67 

Wis.  129,S.C.30  N.W.R.295,       1220 
Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil 

Co.,  106,  N.  Y.  669,  483 

Buffington  v.  Cook,  35  Ala.  312,  1070 
Buffum  V.  Buffum,  11  N.  H.  451,  400 
Buford  V.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Mo. 

App.  159,  499 

Buford    V.    McGetchie,   60  Iowa 

298,  1073 

Buford  V.  Shannon,  95  Ala.  205, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  263,  721 

Buice   V.   Lowman,  etc.,  Co.,  64 

Ga.  769,  245 

Buist  V.  Guice  (Ala.),  11  So.  R. 

280,  531 

Buker  v.  Bowden,  83  Me.  67,  S. 

C.  21  Atl.  R.  748,  594 

Bulger  V.  Roche,  11  Pick.  (Mass.) 

36,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  359,  373 

Bulger  V.  Rosa,  119  N.  Y.  459,  540 

Bulkeley  v.  Butler,  2  Barn.  &  C. 

434,  1028 

Bulkeley  v.  Smith,  2  Duer  (N.  Y.) 

261,  552 

Bulklev  V.  Eckert,  3  Pa.  St.  368,  197 
Bulkley  v.  Morgan,  46  Conn.  393,  353 
Bull  V.  Coe,  77  Cal.  54,  110 

Bull  V.  Com.,  14  Gratt.  613,  1218 

Bull  V.  Conroe,  13  Wis.  260,  121 

Bull  V.  Valley  Falls,  8  R.  I.  42,  483 
Bullard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

64  N.  H.  27,  S.    C.    10  Am.  St. 

Rep.  367,  820,  823 

Bullard  v.  Hicks,  17  Vt.  198,  475 

Bullard  v.  Lambert,  40  Ala.  204,  805 
Bullard  v.  Pearsall,  53  N.  Y.  230,  794 
Bullard  v.  Spoor,  2  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

4.30,  668 

Bullard's    Estate,   Re    (Cal.),   31 

Pac.  R.  1119,  1141,  1142 

Bullene  v.  Smith,  73  Mo.  151,  465 

Buller  v.  Linzee,  100  Mo.  95,  S.  C. 

13  S.  W.  R.  344,  1179 

Bulliner  v.  People,  95  111.  394, 

179,  696,  821 
Bullis  v.  Drake,  20  Neb.  167,  820 


TABL!-:    OF    CASES. 


Ixiii 


[^References  are  to  Pa()es,  Vol.  I,  py 
Bulliss  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Hv.  Co., 

76  Iowa,  080,  "  782 

Biillrnan  v.   North    Britisli,   etc., 

Co.,  159  Mass.  118,  S.  C.34N.E. 

R.  I(j9,  590 

Bullock  V.  Bullock,  122  Mass.  3,  292 
Bullock  V.  Campbell,  9  Gill  182,  364 
Bullock  V.  Dean,  12  Mete.  (Mass.) 

15,  378 

Bullock  V.  Koon,  9  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
.    30,  724 

Bullock  V.  Narrott,  49  111.  62,  537 

Bulson  V.  Lohnes,  29  N.  Y.  291, 

576,  592 
Bulwer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard,  etc., 

Co.,  83  Cal.  613,  639 

Bulwinkle  v.  Cramer,  30  So.  Car. 

153,  S.  C.  8  S.  v..  R.  689,  712 

Bumpass  v.  Webb,  4  Port.  (Ala.) 

65,  S.  C.  29  Am.  Dec.  274,  600 

Bumstead  v.  Read,  31  Barb.  661, 

165,  314 
Bunbury  v.  Fuller,  9  Exch.  Ill,  322 
Bunce  v.  Wolcott,  2  Conn.  27,  380,  381 
Bunch  V.  Grave,  111  Ind.  351,  355 
Bunch  V.  Hart  (Ind.),  37  N.  E.  R. 

537,  1108 

Bundy  v.  Hyde,  50  N.  H.  116,  737 

Bundy  v.   Maeiness,  76  Cal.  532, 

S.  C.  ISPacrR.  668,  1190 

Bundy  v.    McClarnon,    118   Ind. 

165,  1150 

Bunker  v.  Gilmore,  40  Me.  88,  518 
Bunker  v.  Inhabitants  of  Goulds- 

boro,  81  Me.  188,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R. 

543,  1044 

Bunker  v.  Shed,  8  Mete.  (Mass.) 

150,  377 

Bunn  V.  Croul,  10  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

239,  1078 

Bunnell  v.  Bunnell,  93  Ind.  595, 

1121,  1154 
Bunnell  v.  Hav,  73  Ind.  452,  646 

Buntin  v.  Lagow,  1  Blackf.  373,  362 
Buntin  V.  Rose,  16  Ind.  209,  1083, 1092 
Bunting's  Case.  4  Coke  29,  274 

Bunting  v.   Hoesett,   139  Pa.  St. 

363,  S.  C.  12  L.  R.  A.  268,  534 

Bunton  v.  Lvford,  37  N.  H.  512,  S. 

C.  75  Am. "Dec.  144.  605 

Burch  V.  Nowburv.  10  N.  Y.  374,  117 
Burchell  V.  Marsli,  17  How.  (U.S.) 

344.  578,  593,  599 

Burckhalter  v.  Coward,  16  S.  Car. 

435,  677 

Burdett  v.  Hunt,  25  Me.  419.  33 

Burdett  v.  Silsbee,  15  Tex.  604,  314 
Burdick  v.  Hunt,  43  Ind.  381,  12.35 
Burdine  v.  Grand  Lodge,  37  Ala. 

478,  654 


.  j-ao'j,  Vol.  II.  pp.  oo:i-i244.] 

Burge  V.  Shirk,  10  Ind.  396,  184 

Burgess  v.  Aultman,  80  Wis.  292,  441 
Burgess  v.  Kirby,  94  N.  Car.  575,  293 
Burtress  v.  O'Donoghue,   90  Mo. 

299,  S.  C.  2  S.  W.  H.  303,  253 

Burgett  V.  Burgett,  43  Ind.  78,  1064 
Burirovne  v.  Supervisors,  5  Cal. 9,  212 
Buris.s  V.  Wise,  2  Ark.  33,  618 

Burkv.Andis,9.Slnd.59,  179,697,1208 
Burk  v.  Barnanl,  4  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

309,  432 

Burk  V.  Com.,  5  J.J.  Mar.  (Ky.) 

675,  1111,1122 

Burke,  In  re,  76  Wis.  357,  S.C.45 

N.  W.  R.  24,  214,  235 

Burke  v.  Adams,  80  Mo.  504,  S.C. 

50  Am.  R.  510,  525,  560 

Burke  v.  Lee,  76  Va.  386,  536 

Burke  v.  McDonald,  2  Idaho  646, 

S.  C.  33  Pae.  R.  49,  1087 

Burke  v.  State,  71  Ala.  377,  543 

Burke  v.Witherbee,  98  N.Y.  562,  1055 
Burkett  v.  Holman,  104   Ind.  6, 

174,  230,  629,  640 
Burkhalter  v.   Edwards,  16    Ga. 

593,  S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  744,  794 

Burkhart  v.    Gladdish,  123    Ind. 

337,  1215 

Burkhart  v.  Merrv,  88  Ind.  438,  619 
Burlen  v.  Shannon.  115  Mass.  438,  288 
Burlen  v.  Shannon.  99  Mass.  200, 

S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec.  733,  287,  288 

Burleson  v.Burleson,28  Tex.  383,  1088 
Burley  v.  German,  etc.,  Bank,  111 

U.  S.  216,  1213 

Burling  v.  Goodman,  1  Nev.  314,  1192 
Burlingame  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

23Fed.  R.  706,  1121 

Burlington  v.R.R.Co.,41  la.  134,  366 
Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  v.  March- 

and,''5  Iowa  468,  172,  173 

Burlington  Ins.  Co.  v.  Miller,  60 

Fed.  R.  254,  1206 

Burlington  Ins.    Co.   v.    Ross,  48 

KanT  228,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  469,  1025 
Burlington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sater,  1  la. 

421,  ^  1047 

Burlington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Simmons, 

123  U.S.  52,  1184,1187 

Burlington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart, 

39  la.  2(57,  343 

Burlington,  etc.,   Co.   v.  Thomp- 
son, 31  Kan.  180,  473 
Burlock  V.  Cross,  16  Col.  162,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  142,  401 

Burnecker  v.  Miller,  44  Mo.  102,  443 
Burnell  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

45  N.  Y.  184,  554 

Burnett  v.  Meadows,  7  B.   Mon. 

277,  S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  517,  314 


Ixiv 


TABLE    OF    CASliS. 


[References  are  to  Pm/es,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Burnett  v.  Sullivan,  58  Texas  535,    442 
Buraey  v.  Bovett,  1  How.  (Miss.) 

3i).  ■  182 

Burnham  v.  Allen,  1  Gray  (Mass.) 

496,  538 

Burnham    v.    Commonwealth,    1 

Duv.  210,  276 

Burnham  V.  Hatfield,  5  Black!.  21,  636 
Burnham  v.  Morrissey,    14  Gray 

(Mass.)  226,  522 

Burnham  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

17  R.  I.  544, S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  638,  1172 
Burnlev  v.  Cook,   13  Tex.  586,  S. 

C.  65' Am.  Dec.  79,  259 

Burnlev's  Representative  v. Duke, 

2  Rob.  (Va.)  102,  264 

Burnlev  v.  Stevenson,  24  Ohio  St. 

474,  S.  C.  15  Am.  R.  621,  272 

Burnly  v.  State   (Tex.),  14  S.  W. 

Rep.  1008,  618 

Burns  v.  Barenfleld,  84  Ind.  43,      740 
Burns  v.  Burns,  4  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

295,  543 

Burns  v.  Harris,  66  Ind.  536,  704 

Burns  v.  Headerick,  85  Tenn.  102,  361 
Burns  v.  Hendrix,  54  Ala.  78,  596 

Burns  v.  Nash,  32  111.  App.  552,      248 
Burns   v.  Reiglesberger,  70   Ind. 

522,  1048 

Burns  v.  State,  89  Ga.  527,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  748,  656 

Burns  v.  Stewart   Mnfg.  Co.,  31 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  195,  498 

Burns  v.  Wesner  (Ind.),  34  N.  E. 

R.  10,  486 

Burns  v.AVilson,  1  Mo.  App.  179,    1077 
Burnside  v.  Ennis,  43  Ind.  411, 

191,  1244 
Burnside  v.  Whitney,  24  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  632,  S.  C.  21  N.Y.  148,     576,  598 
Burntrager  v.  McDonald,  34  Ind. 

277,  181,  1223 

Burr  V.  Burr,  10  Paige  166,  492 

Burr  V.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Wall.  99,  1138 

Burr  V.  Sevmour,  43  Minn.  401,  S. 

C.  45  N.'W.  R.  715,  452 

Burrall  v.Vanderbilt,!  Bosw.637,     492 
Burrell  v.  State,  129  Ind.  290,  S. 

C.  28  N.  E.  R.  699,  611 

Burrell  v.  State,  18  Tex.  713,  807 

Burrichter  v.  Cline,  3  Wash.  135, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  367,  458 

Burrill  v.  Letson,  2  Spear  (S.  Car.) 

378,  197 

Burrill   v.   Watertown   Bank,   51 

Barb.  (N.Y.)  105,  556 

Burritt  v.Villenuve,  92  Mich.  282, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  614,  539 

Burrough  v.  Hill,  15  R.  I.  190,       1163 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Burrough  v. Skinner,  5  Burr. 2639,     399 
Burroughs  v.  David,  7  la.  154,  577,599 
Burroughs  v.  Ploof,  73  Mich.  607, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  704,  541 

r.urroaghs  v. Wright,  16  Vt.  619,  198 
Burrows  v.  Dickinson,  35  Hun  (is[. 

Y.)  492,  601 

Burrows  v.  State  (Ind.),  37  N.  E. 

R.  271,  1069 

Burson    v.    Mahoney,   6  Baxter, 

.304,  178 

Burtstall  v.  Homer,  7  Tei'm  Rep. 

368,  403 

Burt  V.  Decker,  64  la.  106,  529 

Burt  V.  Panjaud,  99  U.  S.  180, 

178,  662,  666 
Burt  V.  Rynex,  48  Mo.  309,  1127 

Burt  V.  Scranton,  1  Cal.  416,  1198 

Burt    V.    Winona,    etc.,    Co.,    31 

Minn.  472,  S.  C.  18  N.  W.   R. 

285,  120,  143 

Burton  V.  Brashear,  3  A. K. Marsh. 

276,  1034 

Burton  v.  Buckeye  Ins.   Co.,  26 

Ohio  St.  467,  378,  430 

Burton  v.  Driggs,  20  Wall.  125, 

504,  1128,  1206 
Burton  v.  Johnson,  2  Ind.  339,  1175 
Burton  v.  Marrow,  133  Ind.  221, 

S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  921,  1141 

Burton  v. West  Jersey  Co.,  114  U. 

S.  474,  '  1079 

Buscher  v.  Scully,  107  Ind.  246,  823 
Buse  V.  Page,  32  Minn.  HI,  803 

Bush  V.  Bush,  46  Ind.  70,  605,  609 
Bush  V.  Dov,  1  Kan.  86,  138 

Bush  V.  Lisle,  86  Ky.  504,  S.  C.  6 

S.  AV.  R.  330,  225,  237 

Bush  V.  Steinman,  1  B.  &  P.  404,  980 
Bush  V.  Stowell,  71  Pa.  St.  208,  384 
Bushey  v.  Raths,  45  Mich.  181,  608 
Bushnell   v.    Kennedy,    9    Wall. 

387,  345 

Bushnell  v.  Bushnell,  77  Wis.  435, 

S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  411,  364 

Buskett,  In  re,  106  Mo.  602,  S.  C. 

14  L.  R.  A.  407,  781 

Bussey  v.  Leavitt,  12  Me.  378,  451 
Busteed  v.  Parsons,  54  Ala.  393, 

S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  688,  128 

Butcher  v.  Bank,  2  Kan.  70,  316 

Butcher  v.  Taylor,  18  Kan.  558,  1183 
liutcher's   Co.    v.   Jones,    1   Esp. 

160,  505 

Butler,  In  re,  101  N.  Y.  307,  1046 

Butler's  Estate,  In  re,  13  Ir.  Ch. 

R.  456,  196 

Butler  V.  Austin,  64  Cal.  3,  394 

Butler  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

(Iowa),  54  N.  W.  Rep.  208,  783 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixv 


l^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vul.  I,  pp 
Butler  V.  Ciuirch,  14  Bush  540, 

l-'U,  1J13 
Butler  V.  Duncomb,  1  P.  W.  4r>2,  ;>50 
Butler   V.    Farnsworth,   4    Wash. 

C.  C.  101,  311 

Butler  V.  Flan<lers,  \2  .I<jnes  &  8. 

o31,  744 

Butler  V.  Hildretli,  5  Met.  (Mass.) 

49,  355 

Butler  V.  Ilorwitz,  7  Wall.  258,  1192 
Butler  V.  Howe,  13  Me.  307,  380,  381 
Butler  V.  Mavor,  7  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

329,  "  594 

Butler  V.  State,  97  Iml.  378, 

G35,  042,  057,  0.58,  0(iO,  ()97,  098,  1073 
Butler  V.  Truslow,  55  Barb.   (N. 

Y.)  293,  806 

Butler  V.  Tucker,  24  Wend.  447, 

406,  408 
Butler  V.  Wendell,  57  Mich.  62,  S. 

C.  58  Am.  R.  329,  302 

Butler  V.  Wright,  20  Johns.  367,  364 
Butterfleld  v.  Gilchrist,  63  Mich. 

155,  739 

Butterfield   v.  Town  of  Ontario, 

44  Fed.  R.  171,  1177 

Butts  V.  Screws,  95  N.  Car.  215,  454 
Buxton  v.Baughan,6C.&P.674,  395 
Buxton  V.  Howard,  38  Ind.  109,  592 
Buzard  v.  Houston,  119  U.S.  347,  478 
Buzzell  V.  Snell,  25  N.  II.  474,  676 
Bvam  v.Robbins,  0  Allen  (Mass.) 

63,  594 

Byard  v.  Ilarkrider,  198  Ind.  376, 

576,  591 
Bvars     v.    Thompson,    12    Leigh 

'(Va.)  550,  S.C.37  Am. Dec.  680,  595 
Byers  v.  Butterfield,  33  Mo.  376,  1181 
Byers  v.  Orensstein,  42  Minn.  386, 

44  N.  W.  R.  129,  512 

Bvers  v. Van  Deusen,  5Wend.  268,  573 
Byler  v.  Jones,  22  Mo.  App.  623,  458 
Byne  v.  Smith,  76  Ga.  101,  177 

Bynum  v.  Burke  County,  101  N. 

Car.  412,  S.  C.  8  S.  E.  R.  136,  388 
Bvram  v.  Galbraith,  75  Ind.  134,  1158 
Bvram  v.  McDowell,  83  Tenn.  581,  221 
Bvrd  V.  Hudson,  113  N.  Car.  203, 

S.  C.  18  S.  E.  R.  209,  823 

Bvrd  V.  Odem.  9  Ala.  755,  576 

Bvrd  V.  Tucker,  3  Ark.  451,  1236 

Bvrne  v.  Clark,  31  111.  App.  651, 

1227,  1236 
Bvrne  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co., 

29  Minn.  200,  1156 

Byrnes  v.  Byrnes,  102  N.  Y.  4,  301 
Byrnes  v.  Sampson,  74  Tex.  79,  445 
Byron  v.  Low,  109  N.  Y.  291,  407 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 


c 


Cabarga  v.  Seeger,  17  Pa.  St.  514,  538 
Cabell  v.  Vaughan,  1  Saund.  291,  1194 
Cable  V.  Alvord,  27  Ohio  St.  666, 

476,  477 
Cable  v.    State,  8   Blachf.    (Ind.) 

531,  667 

Cady  V.  Norton,  14  Pick.  (Mass.) 

236,  723 

Cadwallader  v.  Brodie  (Pa.),    13 

Atl.  K.  483,  721 

Cadwallader  v.  Louisville,  X.  A., 

etc.,  Co.,  128  Ind.  518,  S.  C.  27 

N.  E.  R.  161.  1095 

Caffrev  v.  Dudgeon,  38  Ind.  512, 

S.  C.  10  Am.  R.  128,  346 

Caffrev  v.  Groome,  10  la.  548,  1160 
Cage,  Ex  parte,  45  Cal.  248,  178 

Cagger  v.  Lansing,  64  N.  Y.  417,  1053 
CahiU,  In  re,  110  Pa.  St.  167,  S.  C. 

20  Atl.  R.  414,  118,  119 

Caliill  V.  Dawson,  1  Frost.  &  F. 

291,  620 

Cahen  v.    Continental   Life   Ins. 

Co.,  09  N.  Y.  300,  504 

Cahoon  v.  Coe,  57  N.  H.  556,  453 

Cain  v.  Goda,  84  Ind.  209,  142,  342 
Cain  V.  Guthrie,  8  Blackf.  409,  ^  398 
Cain  V.  Ingham,  7  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

478,  656 

Cairns  v.  O'Bleness,  40  Wis.  469,  632 
Cairo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Easterly,  89  111. 

156,  1210,  1231 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  32 

Ark.  131,  364 

Cake  V.  Pottsville  Bank,  116  Pa. 

St.  264,  544 

Caldwell  v.  Bennett,  22  So.  Car.  1,  552 
Caldwell  v.  Boyd,  109  Ind.  447,  1146 
Caldwell  v.  Carrington,  9  Pet.  86,  280 
Caldwell   v.    Dickinson,  13  Gray 

(Mass.)  365,  594 

Caldwell  v.  Haley,  3  Texas  317,  462 
Caldwell  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co., 

47  N.  Y.  282,  179 

Caldwell  v.  Murphy,  11  N.Y.  416,  1079 
Caldwell  v.  Sanderson,  69  Wis.  52, 

S.  C.  28  N.  W.  R.  232,  559 

Caldwell   v.    Stileman,    1    Rawle 

(Pa.)  212,  1034 

Calev  v.  Morgan,  114  Ind.  350,  321 
Calhoun  v.    Delhi,   etc.,    Co.,   64 

How.  Pr.  291,  324 

Calhoun  v.  Millard,  121  N.Y.  69,  376 
Calhoun  v.  Thompson,  56  Ala.  166, 

S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  754,  781 


IXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[_References  are  to  Pages,  ^'ol.  I,  pp 
Calhoun  v.  AVebster,  2  Scam.  (111.) 

221,  432 

California,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Gowen, 

48  Fed.  R.  771,  483 

Call  V.  Ballard,  65  Wis.  187,  596 

Call  V.  Hagar,  69  Me.  521,  586 

Canadian    v.    Grenet's    Est.,   66 

Te.x.  286,  1142 

■Callaghan   v.    Myers,    128    U.    S. 

617,  1128 

Callahan  v.  Caffarata,  39  Mo.  136,     553 
Callahan    v.  Jennings,    16     Col. 

471,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  Rep.  1055,  613 
Callahan  v.  Judd,  23  Wis.  343,  337 
Callan  v.  May,  2  Black  541,  1187 

Callan  v.  AVilson,  127  U.  S.  540,      644 
Callanan   v.   Gilman,    107  N.  Y. 

360,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  831,  1146 
Callanan  v.  Shaw,  19  Iowa  183,  496 
Callanan  v.  Shaw,  24  la.  441,  915 

Callaway  v.  Harrold,  61  Ga.  Ill,     436 
Callen  v.  Ellison,  13  Ohio  St.  446, 

S.  C.  82  Am.  Dec.  448,  320,  327 

Callender  v.  Painesville,  etc.,  Co., 

11  Ohio  St.  520,  1210 

Callinan  v.  Port  Huron,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  61  Mich.  15,  S.  C.  27  N.  W. 

R. 718,  589 

Callis  V.  Waddy,  2  Munf.  (Va.) 

511,  368 

Calloway   v.    Cooley     (Kan.),  32 

Pac.  R.  372,  263 

Calvert  v.  Calvert,  15  Col.  390,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  1043,  450 

Calvert  v.  Gray,  2  Cooper's  Ch. 

171,  486 

Cambridge,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Lynch, 

76  N. Y.  514,  1188 

Camden  v.  Allen,  26  N.  J.  L.  398,    258 
Camden  v.  Doremus,  3  How.  (U. 

S.)  515,  712,  1128,  1206 

Camden  v.  Mulford,  26  N..J.L.  49,     324 
Camden  v.  Plain,  91  Mo.   117,  S. 

C.  4  S.  W.  R.  86,  128,  188,  318 

Camden,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Belknap,  21 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  354,  1079 

Cameron  v.  Cameron,  15  Wis.  1, 

513,  514 
Cameron   v.  Castleberry,  29  Ga. 

495,  593 

Cameron  v.   Hodges,   127  U.   S. 

322,  113,  332 

Cameron  v.  White,  74  Wis.   425, 

S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  155,  719 

Camp  v.   Bostwick,   20  Ohio  St. 

337,  364 

Camp  v.  Brown,  48  Ind.  575,      675, 676 
Camp  V.  Morse,  5  Denio  161,  389 

Camp  v.  Rogers,  44  Conn.  291,        424 
Camp  V.  Simon,  34  Ala.  126,  401 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Camp  V.  State,  91  Ga.  8,  S.  C.  16 

S.  E.  R.  379,  1202 

Camp  V.  Tompkins,  9  Conn.  545,  1236 
Camp  V.  Woods,  10  Watts  (Pa.) 

118,  158 
Campbell  v.  Allen,  61  Mo.  581,  1147 
Campbell  v.  Beckett,  8  Ohio  St. 

210,  1077 

Campbell  v.  Board,  118  Ind.  119, 

115,213 
Campbell   v.  Brown,  86  N.  Car. 

376,  384, 386 

Campbell  v.  Campbell,  22  111.  664, 

256, 257 
Campbell  v.  Campbell,  63  111.  462,  424 
Campbell  v.  Chandler,  37  Tex.  32, 

142, 155 
Campbell  v.  Commonwealth,   96 

Pa.  St.  344,  214,  235 

Campbell  v.  Conover,  26  111.  64,  1162 
Campbell  v.  Dwiggins,  83  Ind.  473, 

424, 425 
Campbell  v.  Dutch,  36  Ind.  504, 

1097, 1098 
Campbell  v.  Floyd,  153  Pa.  St.  84, 

S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  1033,  1195 

Campbell  v.  Garton,  29  Mo.  343,  1200 
Campbell  v.  Holland,  22  Neb.  587, 

S.  C.  35  N.  W.  Rep.  871,  1075 

Campbell  v.  Jones,  38  Cal.  507,  393 
Campbell  v.  Maher,  105  Ind.  383,  820 
Campbell  v.  Meseir,  4  Johns.  Ch. 

335,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Dec.  570,  189 

Campbell  v.  Morrison, 7  Paige  157,  488 
Campbell  v.  New  England,  etc., 

Co.,  98  Mass.  381,  919 

Campbell  v.  Roberts,  66  Ga.  733,  677 
Campbell  v.  Roe,  32  Neb.  345,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  452,  364 

Campbell    v.    State,   23    Ala.   44, 

519,  784,  796,  798,  803 
Campbell  v.  Stakes,  2  Wend.  137,  351 
Campbell   v.  Swasey,  12  Ind.  70, 

454,  613 
Campbell  v.  The  Board,  118  Ind. 

119,  117 
Campbell  v.  Thompson,  4  Greene 

(Iowa)  415,  638 

Campbell  v.Twemlow,  1  PriceSl,  580 
Campbell  v.  Upton,  113  Mass.  67,  582 
Campbell  v.  Vining,  23  111.  525,  367 
Campbell  v.  West,  86  Cal.  197,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  1000,  164,  412 

Campbell  v.  Western,  3  Paige  124, 

.679,  591,  593 
Campbell  v.  Wheeler,  69  la.  588,  453 
Campbell  v.  Wilson,  6  Tex.  379,  333 
Campe  v.  Lassen,  67  Cal.  139,  318 

Canadian  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son, 19  Can.  S.  C.  292,  1172 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixvii 


[References  are  to  Pages,   Vol.  I,  pp 
Canajoluirie  Nat.  Bank  v.  Deifen- 

dorf,  lL'8  N.  Y.  i;»l,  1057 

Canal  Bank  v.  Newberry,  7  la. 4,  1195 
Cancemi  v.  People,  18  N.  Y.  128, 

G43,  644 
Candler  v.  Hammond,  23  Ga.  493, 

11G3,  11G9 
Canfield  v.  Watertown  Ins.  Co., 

55  Wis.  419,  597 

Canning  v.  Davis,  4  Burr.  2417,  423 
Cannon  v.  Cannon,  (Hi  Tex.  (582,  164 
Cannon  v.  Hemphill,  7  Tex.  184,  182 
Cannon  v.   Lindsev,  85  Ala.  198, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  38,  1211 

Cannon  v.  McNab,  48  Ala.  99,  132 

Canton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Potts,  69  Miss. 

3,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  448,  483 

Cantwell  v.  People,  138  111.  602, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  964,  630 

Capehart  v.  Cunningham,  12  W. 

Va.  750,  428,  436 

Caperton  v.  Caperton,  36  W.  Va. 

635,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  149,  569 

Caperton  v.  Nickel,  4  W.Va.  173,  652 
Capital   Bank   v.    Armstrong,   62 

Mo.  59,  110,1066 

Capital  Citv,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cole,  etc., 

Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  228,  626 

Capital  Citv  Oil  Works  v.  Black, 

70  Miss.  8,  S.  C.  12  So.  R.  26,     1054 
Cappeau  v.  Middleton,  1  Har.  & 

G.  154,  508 

Capper  v.  Siblev,  65  la.  754,  S.  C. 

23  N.  W.  R.  153,  145 

Capron  v.  VanNoorden,  2  Cranch 

126,  342 

Carbrev  v.  Willis,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 

364,  '  551 

Card  V.  Foot,  57  Conn.  427,  798 

Carder  v.  Garden,  107  N.  Car.  214, 

S.  C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  876,  464 

Carder  v.  Primm,  52  Mo.  App.  102,  800 
Carew  v.  Howard,  1  Root  (Conn.) 

323,  656 

Carey  v.  Bntler,  11  Ind.  391,  432 

Carev  v.    Chicago,   etc.,    Co.,   61 

Wis.  71,  1063 

Carev  v.  Wilcox,  6  N.  H.  177,  572 

Cargar  v.  Fee,  119  Ind.  536, 

226,  234,  236 
Cargen  v.  People,  39  Mich.  549,  661 
Cargo  of  Schooner  North  Carolina, 

15  Pet.  40,  277 

Carico  v.  West  Va.,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  35  W.  Va.  389,  S.  C.  14  S. 

E.  R. 12,  1065 

Carleton  v.  Darcv,  75  N.Y.  375.  1047 
Carleton  v.  People,  10  :Mich.  250, 

217,  54,5 
Carleton  v.  Rugg,  149  Mass.  550,  1127 


.  7-6Y>2,   Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Carleton  v.  Townsend,  28  Cal.  219,  31 
Carli  V.  Rhener,  27  Minn.  292,  S. 

C.  7  N.  W.  R.  139,  217 

Carlin  v.  Brackett,  38  Minn.  307, 

S.  C.  37  N.  \V.  R.  342,  1178 

Carlisl(i  v.  Cooper,  21  N.  .1.   Va\. 

576,  ;j()l 

Carlisle  v.  Cowan,  85  Tenn.   165, 

S.  C.  2  S.  W.  R.  26,  310,  313 

Carlisle  v.  Gaar,  18  Ind.  177,  163 

Carlisle  v.  State,  32  Ind.  55,  309 

Carlisle  v.  Tuttle,  30  Ala.  613,  508 
Carlisle  v.  Wilson,  13  Ves.  276,  301 
Carlton  v.  Commonwealth  (Ky.), 

18  S.  W.  R.  535,  179 

Carlton    v.    Miller,   2    Tex.   Civ. 

App.  619,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.R.  697,   1047 
Carlvle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Car- 

Ivle,  31  111.  App.  325,  1145 

Carman  v.  Pultz,  21  N.  Y.  547,  149 
Carmichael  v.  Adams,  91  Ind.  526,  643 
Carmien   v.    Whitaker,    36    Ind. 

509,  1194 

Carmikle  v.  Cox,  58  Ind.  133,  1048 
Carmody  v.  State,  105  Ind.  546,  163 
Carnahan  v.  Chenoweth,  1  Ind. 

App.  178,  1167 

Carnal  v.  People,  1  Park.  Cr.  (N. 

Y.)  272,  667 

Carney  v.  Dewing,  10  Gush.  498,  199 
Carnochan  v.  Christie,  11  Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  446,  595,600 

Carolan  v.  Carolan,  4  Ark.  511,  336 
Carpenter's  Case.  14  Pa.  St.  486,  298 
Carpenter  v.    Ambroson,   20  111. 

170,  737 

Carpenter  v.  Bristol,  21  Pick.  258,  162 
Carpenter  v.  Butterlield,  3  Johns. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  145,  377 

Carpenter  v.  Dame,  10  Ind.  125, 

502,  646 
Carpenter  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  119 

HI.  352,  669 

Carpenter  v.  Ginder,  1  Wis.  243,  518 
Carpenter  v.  Joliot  Bank,  119  111. 

352,  1070 

Carpenter  v.  Lockhart,  1  Ind.  434,  394 
Carpenter  V.  People,  8  Col.  116, 

121,  170 
Carpenter  v.  Reynolds,  58  Wis. 

666,  ■  1184 

Carpenter  v.  Sherfy,  71  111.  427,  1191 
Carpenter  v.  State,"  43  Ind.  371,  1067 
Carpenter  v.  Strange,  141  U.  S.  87.  271 
Carjienter  v.  Ward.  30  N.  Y.  243,  721 
Carpenter  v.  Welch.  40  Vt.  251.  '  402 
Carjienter  v.  Willev.  iirt  Vt.    168, 

S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  488,  1124,  1218 

Cari)enter    v.     Wood,     1     Mete 

(.Mass.)  409,  592 


Ixviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


iReferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 


Carpentierv.Mendenhall,  28  Cal 

484,  551 

Carr's  Adm'r  v.  Can-  (Kv.),  18  S. 

W.  R.  453,  ~    "  445 

Carr  v.  Boone,  108  Ind.  241,  713, 1216 
Carr  v.  Fife,  44  Fed.  R.  713,  224 

Carr  v.  Haskett,  110  lud.  152,  1130 
Carr  v.  Lewis,  15  ]\Io.  App.  551,  499 
Carr  v.  Lewis,  96  Mo.  149,  8  S.  W. 

R.  907,  499 

Carr  v.  Lewis,  etc.,  Co.,  96  Mo. 

149,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  328, 

1139,  1145 
Carr  v.  Schaefer,  15  Col.  48,  S.  C. 

24  Pac.  R.  873,  .533 

Carr  v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  120 

Carr  v.  SulUvan,  m  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

246,  644 

Carr  v.  Thomas,  34  Ind.  292,  1231 

Carrico  v.  McGee,  1  Dana  (Kv.) 

6,  '       524 

Carrico  v.  Tarwater,  103  Ind.  86,  445 
Carrico  v.   West  Virginia,    etc., 

R'y  Co.,  35  W.  Va.  389,  S.  C. 

14  S.  E.  R.  12,  721 

Carrigan   v.    Drake,  36  So.    Car. 

354,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  339,  344 

Carrington  v.  Andrews,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  R.  348,  209,  224 

Carrington   v.   Hancock,  23  Mo. 

App.  299,  1163 

Carrol  v.  Upton,  3  N.  Y.  272,  555 

Carroll  County   Savings  Bank  v. 

Strother,  28  "^So.   Car.  504,  S.  C. 

6  S.  E.  R.  313,  413 

Carroll  v.  Bancker,  43  La.  Ann. 

1195,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  187,  610 

Carroll  v.    Interstate,    etc.,  Co., 

107  Mo.  653,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R. 

889,  1051 

Carroll  v.  Langan,  18  N.  Y.  Supl. 

290,  S.  C.  63  Hun  380,  304 

Carroll  v.  Lee,  3  Gill  &  J.  (Md.) 

504,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  350,  609 

Carroll  v.  Lessee,  16  How.   (U. 

S.)  275,  49 

Carroll  v.  Little,  73  Wis.  52,  S.  C. 

40  N.  W.  R.  .582,  1220 

Carroll  v.  McCullough,  63  N.  H. 

95,  290 

Carroll  v.  State,  5  Neb.  31,  815 

Carroll    v.   Williston,    44    Minn. 

287,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  352,  1079 

Carrothers  v.  Carrothers,  107  Ind. 

5.30,  1048,  1226,  12.33 

Carrow  v.  People,  113  111.  -550,  639 
Carskadden  v.  Poorman,  10  Watts 

(Pa.)  82,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  145,     714 
Carsley  v.  Lindsay,  14  Cal.  390,      599 


Carson  v.  Commissioners,  64  N. 

Car.  566,  338 

Carson  v.  Dunham,  149  :Mass.  52,  486 
Carson  v.  Earlywine,  14  Ind.  256, 

576,  594 
Carson  v.  Sheldon,  51  Mo.  436,  429 
Carter's  Heirs  v.  Cutting,  8  Cranch 

251,  264 

Carter  v.  Deals,  44  N.  H.  408,  1168 
Carter  v.  Bennett,  6  Fla.  214,  524,  715 
Carter  v.  Bennett,  15  How.  354,  1170 
Cai'ter  v.  Camden,  etc.,  49  N.  J. 

L.  600,  S.  C.  10  Atl.  R.  108,         1129 
Carter  v.  Carter,  82  Va.  624,  409 

Carter  v.  Carter,  109  Mass.  306,  599 
Carter  v.  Humbolt  Ins.  Co.,  12  la. 

9gT  385 

CaWr  V.  Oliver  Oil  Co.,  34  S.  Car. 

211,  S.  C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  815,        1066 
Carter  v.  Penn,  79  Ga.  747,  454 

Carter  v.  State,  36  Neb.  481,  S.  C. 

54  N.  W.  Rep.  853,  799 

Carter  v.  State,  56  Ga.  463,  652 

Carter  v.  State,  22  Fla.  553,  543 

Carter  v.  State,  42  La.  Ann.  927, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  836,  171 

Carter  v.  Tallant  (Kan.),  32  Pac. 

R.  1108,  607 

Carter  v.  Van  Zandt  Co.,  75  Tex. 

286,  1163 

Carter  Lumber  Co.  v.  Clay  (Tex.), 

10  S.  W.  R.  293,  543 

Carthage    Co.    v.    Andrews,    102 

Ind.  138,  621,  739 

Cartier  v.  Troy  Lumber   Co.,  35 

111.  App.  449,  821 

Cartier  v.  Troy  Lumber  Co.,  138 

111.  533,  S.  C.  14  L.  R.  A.  470,     1069 
Cartledge  V.  Cutliff,  21  Ga.  1,  586 

Cartright  v.  Bamberger,  90  Ala. 

405,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  264,  529 

Cartright  v.   Clopton,  25  Ga.  85, 

678,  818 
Cartwell  v.  Meniffe,  2  Ark.  356,  605 
Caruth  v.  Grigsby,  57  Tex.  259,  1068 
Carver  v.  Carver,  64  Ind.  194,  610 

Carver  v.  Carver,  83  Ind.  368,  1155 
Carver  v.   Carver,   97    Ind.   497, 

110, 1050 
Carver  v.  Cary,  7  Robt.   (N.  Y. 

Sup.  Ct.)  286,  601 

Carver  v.  Louthain,  38  Ind.  530,  420 
Carver  v.  Williams,  10  Ind.  267,  1197 
Carv  V.  Bancroft,  14  Pick. (Mass.) 

315,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  393,  401 

Cary  v.  Cary,  .39  N.  J.  Eq.  20,  477 

Cary  v.  Herrin,  62  Me.  16,  200 

Casco  Nat.  Bank  v.  Shaw,  79  Me. 

376,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  319,  621 


TAliLE    (JF    CASES. 


Ixix 


[^Beferences  are  to  Pojjes,  ]'()l.  /,  pp 
Case  of  Clore,  8  Gratt.  <;0(>,  660 

Case  of  Coleman,  2  City  11.  llec. 

89,  657 

Caseof  Emerv,  107  Mass.  172,  781 
Case  of  Hardy,  24  Huw.  State  Tr. 

755,  779 

Case  of  the  Marshelsea,  10  Coke 

76,  214 

Case  of  Murdock,  2  Bland.  Ch. 

461,  480 

Case,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miracle.  54AVis. 

295,  471 

Case  Threshing  Machine  Co.   v. 

Haven,  65  la.  359,  390 

Case  V.  Ins.  Co.,  83  Cal.  473,  S.  C. 

23  Pac.  R.  534,  385 

Case  V.  Moore,  21  Ala.  758,  473 

Case  V.  Plato,  54  Iowa  64,  S.  C.  6 

N.  W.  R.  128,  182,  1193,  1203 

Case  V.  State,  5  Ind.  1,  214,  216 

Casebolt  v.  Ackerman,  46  N.J.  L. 

169,  384 

Casement    v.   Ringgold,    28  Cal. 

335,  1203 

Casey  v.  Adams,  102  U.  S.  66,  272 
Casey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  45 

Fed.  R.  135,  S.  C.  12  Lawy.  R. 

Anno.  193,  482 

Casev  V.  State,  20  Neb.  138,  S.  C. 

29N.  W.  R.  264,  1114 

Casey  v.  Tama  Co.,  75  Iowa,  655, 

S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  138,  543 

easily  v.  State,  32  Ind.  62,  159,  161 
Caskev  v.  City  of  Greensburgh, 

78  Ind.  233,  232 

Cason  V.  Cason,  31  Miss.  578,  446 

Caspar  v.  O'Brien,    15   Abb.   Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  N.  S.  402,  738 

Cass  V.  Higenbotani,100  N.Y.  248,  400 
Cass  V.  Krimbill,  39  Ind.  857,  161,  234 
Cass  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  522,  395 

Cass  V.  AVilliams,  46  Ind.  253,  469 
Cassel  V.  Case,  14  Ind.  393,  190 

Cassiday  v.  Con  way, 25  Pa.  St.  244,  34 
Cassidv  v.  Wood  ward,  77  Iowa  354,  445 
Castle  V.  Billiard,  23  How.  (U.  S.) 

172,  1065 

Castle  V.  Burditt,  3  T.  R.  623,  379 

Castleton  v.  Sherry,  42  Tex.  59,  1073 
Castner    v.    Richardson,  18  Col. 

496,  S.  C.  .33  Pac.  R.  163,  1140 

Castner  v.  Sliker.  33  N.  J.  L.  95,  740 
Castri(iue  v.  Imrie,  L.  R.,  4  H.  L. 

414,  302 

Caswell  V.  Bunch,  77  Ga.  504,  313 

Cates  V.  Knight,  3  T.  R.  442,  337 

Cates  V.  Loftus,  3  A.  K.  Marsh. 

(Ky.)  204,  31 


.  l-aO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60.3-1244.'] 
Cates  V.  Mayes  (Tex.),  12  S.  W. 

R.  51,  621 

Cates  V.  Thaver,  93  Ind.  156,  514 

Cates  V.  Winter,  3  Term  R.  306,  506 
Catham    Furnace  Co.  v.  Moffatt, 

147  .Mass.  403,  1145 

Cathcart  v.  Peck,  11  Minn.  45,  183 
Catlett  V.  Dougherty,  114  III.  .568,  602 
Catlett  V.  McDonald,  13  La.  44,  488 
Catlin  V.  Gladding,  4  Mason  308,  311 
Catlin  V.  Green,  120  N.  Y.  441,  376 
Catlin  V.  Wheeler,  49  Wis.  507,  337 
Catlin  V.  Wilcox,  123  Ind.  477,  409 
Catlin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Valentine,   9 

Pai  ge  575 ,  S .  C .  38  A  m .  Dec .  567 ,  483 
Cattell   V.  Dispatch   Pub.  Co.,  88 

Mo.  356,  1121 

Cattell  V.  Simons,  6  Beav.  304,  1216 
Cauldwell  v.  Curry,  93  Ind.  363, 

165,  .325 
Caulfield  v.  Hudson,  3  Cal.  390,  256 
Caughev  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  51 

iMinn".324,  S.C.  53  N.W.R.  545,  1200 
Cavanaugli  v.  Fuller,  9  Kan.  2.33,  1199 
Cavanaugh  y.  Smith,  84  Ind.  380,  318 
Cave  V.  State,  41  Tex.  182,  1074 

Caviel  v.  Coleman,  72  Tex.  550,  213 
Cecconi  v.  Rodden,  147  Mass.  164, 

S.  C.  16  N. E.  R.  749,  718, 1232 

Cecil  V.  Cecil,  19  Md.  72,  S.  C.  81 

Am.  Dec.  626,  274 

Cedar  Lake,  etc.,  Co.,  v.  Cedar 

Lake,  etc.,  Co.,  79  AVis.  297,  S. 

C.  48  N.  AY.  R.  371,  1176 

Cefret  v.  Burch,  1  Blackf .  400,  508 

Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Arlington, 

etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  4,  509 

Center  v.  ]\IcQuesten,  24  Kan.  480,  475 
Center  v.  Spring,  2  la.  303,  544 

Center  Tp.  v.  Board,  110  Ind.  579, 

639,  1200 
Central  Bank  v. Gibson,  11  Ga.4.53,  248 
Central   Baptist  Church  v.  3Ian- 

chester,  17    R.  I.  492,  S.  C.  23 

Atl.  R.  30,  528 

Central,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Placer,   43 

Cal.  365,  241 

Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard,etc., 

Co.,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  372,  492 

Central,  etc..  Co.  v.  State,  110  Ind. 

20.S.  484 

Central,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Craig, 

59  Ga.  185,  1161 

Central  Iowa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Piersol, 

65  la.  498,  S.  C.  22  N.AA'.R.  648.  154 
Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  (i3 

Ga.  173,  6.58 

Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  24  N. 

J.  L.  824,  1041.  1045 


Ixx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  p)p.  603-1244.] 


Central   Transp.  Co.  v.  Pullman 

Palace  Car  Co.,  139  U.  S.  24,  y. 

C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  478, 

1039,  1044,  1049,  1051 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

K.  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  551,  497 

Central  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State, 

110  Ind.  203,  492,  1230 

Central  Vt.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Soper,  59 

Fed.  R.  879,  1079 

Centralia,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.v.  Brake, 

125  111.  393,  S.C.  17  N.E.R.  820,  559 
Cerro   Gordo   County   v.  Wright 

County,  59  la.  485,  255 

Chadbourn  v.  Chadbourn,  9  Allen 

(Mass.)  173,  582 

Chadbourn   v.  Franklin,  5  Gi-ay 

312,  706 

Chadbourne  v.  Sumner,  16  N.  H. 

129,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec.  720,  455,  468 
Chadron  School  District  v.  Foster, 

31  Neb.  501, S.  C.  48  N.W.  R.  267,  559 
Chadwick  v.  Chadwick,  52  Mich. 

545,  919 

Chafee  v.  Postal  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  35 

S.Car.  372,  S.C.  14S.E.R.  764,  610 
Chaffee  v.  Hooper,54  Vt.513,  245,  341 
Chaffee  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  17  R.  I.  658,  S.  C.  24  Atl. 

R.  141, 
Chaffee  v.  Quidnick  Co.,  13  R.  I 

442, 
Challen  v.  Cincinnati,  40  Ohio  St. 

113,  1170 

Chalmers  v.  Melville,  1  E.D.Smith 

(N.Y.)  502,  521 

Chamberlain  v.Bittersohn,48  Fed. 

R.  42, 
Chamberlain  v.  Gaillard,  26  Ala. 

504, 
Chamberlain  V.  Lincoln, 129  Mass. 

70, 
Chamberlain  v.  Sands,27  Me.458, 
Chamberlin  v.  Blodgett,  96   Mo. 

482,  S.  C.  10  S.  W.  R.  44, 
Cham})erlin    v.    Chamberlin,    116 

111.  480,  S.  C.  6  N.  E.  R.  444,  1067 
Chamberlin  v.  Fuller,  59  Vt.  247, 

S.  C.  9  Atl.  R.  832,  553 

Chambers,  Ex  parte,  10  Mo.  App. 

240,  630 

Chambers  v.  Butcher,  82  Ind.508, 

1233 
Chambers  v.  Cooks,  42  Ala.  171, 

S.  C.  94  Am.  Dec.  637,  602 

Chambers  v.  Hodges,  23  Tex.  104, 

218,  224 
Chambers  v.  Hunt,  22  N..T.L.  552,  509 
Chambers  v.  Hunt,  3  Harr.  (N. 

J.)  354,  21 


548 
282 


435 

675 

589 
794 

448 


306 
370 

783 

623 

258 

696 


29 
823 


Chambers  v.  Jones,  72  111.  275,  293 
Chambers  v.  Lane,  5  Mo.  289,  620 
Chambers  v.  People,  105  111.  409, 

1069,  1074 
Chamble  v.  Tarbox,  27  Tex.  139,  32 
Chamble  v.  Tribble,  23  So.  Car.  70,  112 
Chamness  v.  Chamness,  53  Ind. 

301,  1069 

Champ  v.Kendrick,  130  Ind.  549,  479 
Champion  v.  Doughty,  18  N.  J.  L. 

3, 
Chance  v.  Branch,  58  Tex.  490, 
Chandler  v.  Beal,  132  Ind.  596,  S. 

C.  35  N.  E.  Rep.  597, 
Chandler  v.  Colcord,  1  Okl.  260, 

S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  330, 
Chandler  v.  Hanna,  73  Ala.  390, 
Chandler  v.  Home,  2  M.  &  Rob. 

423, 
Chandler  v.   Hough,  7  La.  Ann. 

440,  909 

Chandler  v.  Jost,  96  Ala.  596,  S. 

C.  11  So.  R.  636,  535,  1071 

Chandler  v.  Nash,  5  Mich.  409,       115 
Chandler  v.  Shehan,  7  Ala.  251, 
Chandler  v.  Thompson,  30  Fed 

R.  38, 
Chandlery.  Von  Roeder,  24  How. 

(U.  S.)  224,  524,  715 

Chaney  v.  Bryan,  15  Lea  589,  287 

Channon  v.  Kerber,  44  111.  App. 

269,  1068 

Channon  v.  Parkhouse,  13  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  341,  628 

Chapin  v.  James,  11  R.  I.  86,  S.  C. 

23  Am.  R.  412,  299 

Chapin  v.  Siger,  4  McLean  C.  C. 

378,  394 

Chaplin  v.  Rogers,  1  East  192,  560 
Chaplin  v.  Sullivan,  128  Ind.  50,  1109 
Chapman  v.  Armistead,  4  Munf. 

(Va.)  382,  1104 

Chapman   v.    Barney,    129  U.   S. 

677,  332,  1214 

Chapman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  26 

Wis.  295,  S.  C.  7  Am.  R.  81,       1077 
Chapman  v.  City  Council,  28  S. 

Car.  373,  S.  C.  13  Am.   St.  R. 

681,  1211 

Chapman  v.  Colby,  47  Mich.  46,  557 
Chapman  v.  Cooley,  12  Rich.  L. 

(S.  Car.)  654,  807 

Chapman  V.  Goodrich,  55  Vt.  354,  377 
Chapman   v.    Loomis,   36    Conn. 

459,  781 

Chapman  v.  Mayor,  55  Ga.  566,  549 
Chapman  v.  McCormick,  86  N.  Y. 

479,  526,  1063 

Chapman   v.    Morgan,   2  Greene 

(Iowa)  374,  248,  304 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


Ixxi 


[EeferP7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vul.  I,  pp 
Chapman  v.  Morgan,  2G.  Greene 

(la.)  544,  333 

Chapman  v.Seccomb,  36  Me.  102,  586 
Chapman  v.  State,  5  Blckf.  Ill,  143 
Chapman  v.  Wilkinson,  22  Iowa, 

541,  180 

Chappell  V.  Allen,  38  Mo.  213, 

525,  1071 
Chappell  V.  Funk,  57  Md.  465,  1178 
Chardon  v.  Oliphant,  6  Am.  Dee. 

572,  384 

Charles  v.  Amos,  10  Col.  272,  604 

Charles  v.  Morrow,  99  Mo.  638,  S. 

C.  12  S.  AV.  R.  903,  445 

Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 

Bridge,  11  Peters,  420,  98 

Charleston  School  Tp.  v.  Hay,  74 

Ind.  127,  377 

Charlotte  v.  Choteau,  33  Me.  194,  545 
Charnock   v.    De wings,   3  Car.  & 

K.  378,  695 

Chase,  Ex  parte,  43  Ala.  303,  630 

Chase's  Case,  17  Am.  Deer.  277,  495 
Chase's  Case,  1  Bland  Ch.  (Md.) 

206,  S  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  277,  194 

Chase  v.  Blodgett,  10  N.  H.  22,  307 
Chase  v.  Cart  right,  58  .Vrk.  353, 

S.  C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  207,  373 

Chase  V.  Christiansen,  41  Cal.  253,  245 
Chase  v.  Flagg,  48  Me.  182,  284 

Chase  v.  Hathwav,  14  Mass.  222,  289 
Chase  V.  Horton,"l43  Mass.  118,  1068 
Chase  v.  Kavnor,  78  Iowa  449,  S. 

C.  43  N.  W.  Rep.  269,  446 

Chase  v.  Lee,  59  Mich.  237,  S.  C. 

26  N.  AV.  R.  483,  704 

Chase  v.  Searles,  45  N.  H.  511,  498 
Chase  v.Springvale  Mills,  75  Me. 

156,  512 

Chase  v.  Weston,  75  Iowa,  159,  S. 

C.  39  N.  W.  R.  246,  218 

Chateaugav,  etc.,   Co.   v.  Blake, 

144  U.  S!  476,  179 

Chateaugav,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Petition- 
er, 128  it.  S.  544,  1222,  1237 
Chatfield  v.  Williams,  85  Cal.518,    389 
Chattanooga,  etc.,   R.  R.  Co.   v. 

Jackson,  86  Ga.  676,  620 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Palmer,  89  Ga.  161,  S.  C.  15  S. 

E.  R.  34,  1114 

Chealev  v.  Brewer.  7  3Iass.  259,  197 
Cheatani  v.  Whitman,  Sli  Ky.  614,  331 
Cheatham  v.  Bricn.  40  Tenn.  552,  146 
Cheatham  v.  Wilher,  1  Dak.  335, 

S.  C.  46N.  W.  R.  580,  1078 

Cheathman,     Ex   jKirte,    1    Eng. 

(Ark.)581,  S.C.  44  Am.  Dec.  525,  430 
Cheathman  v.^Iorrison,  37  S.Car. 

187,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  924,  608 


1-00'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Cheek  v. City,  92  Ind.  107,  366 

Cheek  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  etc., 

9  Heisk.  489,  143,  146 

Cheely  v.  Clayton,  110  U.  S.  701, 

S.  C.  4  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  328,  288 

Cheethnian  v.  Lewis,  3  Johns  (N. 

Y.)  42,  377 

Cheever  v.  Wilson,  9  Wall.  108,  288 
Cheg  Gong  v.  Stearns,  16  Ore.  219, 

17  Pac.  R.  871,  1242 

Chemical  Nat.  Bank  v.  Kissane, 

32  Fed.  R.  429,  379 

Chemical    Works  v.    Hecker,    11 

Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  552,  30 

Chenerv  v.  Fitchburg  R.  R.  Co. 

(Mass.),  35  N.  E.  R.  554,  1079 

Cheney  v.  Harding,  21   Neb.  68, 

454,  457 
Cheney  v.  Martin,  127  Mass.  304,  591 
Cheney  v.  Smith,  42  Ga.  50,  624 

Chenoweth  v.  Lessee  of  Haskell, 

3  Pet.  92,  1025 

Cherokee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  47 

Kan.  460,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  178,     620 
Cherrv  v.  Mississipjji  Ins.  Co.,  16 

Lea"(Tenn.)  292,  459 

Cherrv  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N. 

Y.  161,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  369, 

165,  324 
Chesapeake,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Hickey 

(Ky.),  22S.  W.  R.  441,  1200 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Macken- 

zie,74  j\Id.  36,S.C.  21  Atl.R.  690,    345 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Patton,  5 

W.  Va.  234  ,  488 

Chesai>eake  &  O.  S.  W.  R.  R.  Co. 

v.  Barlow,  86  Tenn.  537,  1123 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    R.    Co.    v. 

Heath,  87  Ky.  651,  613 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Pat- 
ton,  9  W.  Va.  648,'  1118 
Chesapeake   Ins.  Co.  v.  Stark,  6 

Cranch.  (U.  S.)  268,  1105 

Cheslev  v.  Cheslev,  10  N.  H.  327,  579 
Cheslev  v.  Cheslev,  37  X.  H.  229,  800 
Chesney  v.  Meadows,  90  111.  430,  1071 
Chess  V.  Chess,  1  Pen.  &  W.  32, 

S.  C.  21  Am.  Dec.  340,  803 

Chess  V.  State,  1  Blackf.  198,  308 

Chester  v.  Bower,  55  Cal.  46,  179 

Chester  v.  Wilhelm,  111  N.  Car. 

314,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  229,  795 

Chester  ct  T.  Coal  i*i  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Lickiss,  72  111.  521,  431 

Chestnutt  v.  Pollard,  77  Tex.  86, 

S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  852,  149,  1147 

Chews  v.  Driver,  1  N.  J.  L.  166,  1124 
Chicago  V.  McCarthv,  75  111.  602.  549 
Chicago  V.  Moore.  139  111.  201,  S. 

C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1071,  546 


Ixxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferejices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Chicago  V.  Rogers,  61  111.  188,        1110 
Chicago,   Anderson,   etc.,   Co.  v. 

Reinneiger,   140  111.  334,   S.  C. 

29  N.  E.  R.  1106,  1091 

Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  An- 
derson (Neb.) ,  56  N.W.  R.  794,    1081 
Chicago,  B.  ct  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fitz- 
gerald, 40  III.  App.  476,  536 
Chicago,   B.   &   Q.  R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Goracke,  32  Neb.  90,  S.  C.  48  N. 

W.  R.  879,  705 

Chicago,   B.   &   Q.   R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Landauer,  36  Neb.  642,  S.  C.  54 

N.  W.  R.  976,  548,  1053 

Chicago,    B.    &   Q.  R.    R.  Co.  v. 

Manning,  23  Neb.  552,  S.  C.  37 

N.  W.  R.462,  441 

Chicago  Citv  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox 

(111.),  24  N.  E.  R.  419,  S.  C.  8 

L.  R.  A.  494,  1076 

Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.Van  Vleck, 

143  I11.480,S.C.32N.E.R.262, 

1043,  1052 
Chicago  Dock  &  Canal  Co.  v.  Kin- 

zie,'93I]l.  415,  432 

Chicago,  etc. , V.Jones, 103  Ind.386,   178 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bills,  104  Ind. 

13,  70 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  v.  Bragonier, 

13  Bradw.  (111.)  467,  823 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,  Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  481,  487 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carson,  133 

Ind.  49,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  827,       195 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chamberlain, 

84  111.  333,  165,  317,  324 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dey,  76  la. 

279,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  17,  1137 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dimick,  96 

111.  42,  1170 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Estes,  71  la. 

603,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  124,  490 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greiney,  137 

111.  628,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  798,       152 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harper,  128 

111.  384,  1235 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  34 

111.  App.  351,  1239 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moss,  60  Miss. 

641,  120 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robinson,  16 

111.  App.  229,  800 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Snyder,  128 

111.  655,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  520,     1061 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  47 

Kan.  704,  S.  C.28Pac.  R.1017,     778 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  19 

Fed.  R.  5,  572 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Jo,  etc., 
Co.,  38  Fed.  R.  58,  478 


7-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Summers,  113 

Ind.  10,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  616,     218 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sutton,  130 

IndT  405,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  291, 

126,  133, 168,  240,  260 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United  States, 

etc.,  Co.,  57  Pa.  St.  83,  195 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  131 

Ind.  30,  1025 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yando,  127 

111.  214,  182 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.  v.  Adler, 

56111.344,  658 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Avery, 

109  111.  314,  1065 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bills, 

118  Ind.  221,  378 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boyce, 

73  111.  510,  553 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Brown, 

44Kan.384,  S.C.24Pac.  R.497,    512 
Chicago,  etc.,   R.  R.  Co.  v.   Bur- 
ger, 124  Ind.  275,  S.  C.  24  N.  E. 

R.  981,  52ft 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher, 

141  111.  614,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R. 

406,  658,  663 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Goy- 

ette,  32  111.  App.  574,  620 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.  v.  Hughes, 

28  Mich.  186,  591 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lam- 
bert, 119  111.  255,  S.  C.  ION.  E. 

Rep.  219,  740 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis, 

109  111.  120,  1055 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mason, 

11  111.  App.  525,  473 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McAu- 

ley,  121  111.  160,  369 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McLal- 

len,  84  111.  109,  545 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ohle, 

117  U.  S.  123,  543 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pen- 

nell,  110  111.  435,  534 

Chicago,  etc.,R.  R.  Co.  v.  Shenk, 

131  111.  283,  742 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  Sny- 
der, 128  111.  655,  S.  C.  21  N.  E. 

R.  520,  1081 

Chicago,  etc.,  R'y  Co.  v.  Bryan, 

90  111.  126,  677 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hay,  119 

111.  493,  373 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Loeb,  118 

111.  203,  369 

Chicago,  K.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Parsons,  51   Kan.  408,  S.  C.  32 

Pac.  R.  1083,  1082 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


Ixxiii 


'[References  are  to  Panes,   ]'(il.  I,  pp 

Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Merri- 
mack, etc.,  Bank  (Kan.),  34 
Pac.  K.  1045,  1024 

Chicago  Packing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Til- 
ton,  87  111.  547,  560 

Chicago,  P.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Lean,  41  111.  App.  584,  813 

Chicago,  P.  ct  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Lewis,  145  111.  07,  S.  C.  33  N.  E. 
R.  <J(iO,  1075 

Chicago,  St.  P.  &  M.  O.  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Gilbert,  53  Fed.  R.  711,    1075 

Chicago,  St.  L.  it  P.  R'y  Co.  v. 
Burger,  124  Ind.  275, 

530,  1104,  1107 

Chicago.  St.  L.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ciiampion,  3(5  Cent.  L.  Jour. 
280,  812 

Chicago,  St.  L.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Champion  (Ind.),  36  N.  E.  R. 
221,  812 

Chicago,  St.  L.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Fenn,  3  Ind.  App.  250,  S.  C.  29 
N.  E.  R.  790,  534 

Chicago,  St.  L.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Fry,  131  Ind.  319,  1103 

Chicago,  St.  L.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Spilker,  134  Ind.  380,  1076 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  v.  Fisher,  141 
111.  614,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  406,     1069 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Adler, 
56  111.  344,  663 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly, 
127  111.  637,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R. 
203,  536 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rag- 
land,  84  in.  375,  474 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Shenk, 
131  111.  283,  742 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
78  111.96,  437 

Chicago  &  Eastern  111.  R,  R.  Co. 
V.  Boggs,  101  Ind.  522,  S.  C.  51 
Am.  R.  761,  547 

Chicago  &  Eastern  111.  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  Ostrander,  116  Ind.  259, 

525,  546, 1096 

Chicago  ct  I.  Coal  Rv.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Daniel,  134  Ind.  166,  1118,  1119 

Chicago  ct  St.  L.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Ash- 
ling, 34  111.  App.  99,  549 

Chichester  v.  Cande,  3  Cowen  50, 
S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  238,  187 

Chilcote  V.  Conley,  36  Ohio  St. 
545,  475 

Child  V.  Jackson,  93  Mich.  503,  S. 
C.  53  N.  W.  R.  629,  1141 

Childs  V.  :McChesnev.  20  la.  431, 
S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  545,  182 

Childs  V.  Smith,  55  Barb.  45,  298 


.  1-002,  Vol.  ILpp.  603-1244.] 

Chil.ls  V.  State,  76  Ala.  93,  1074 

Childress    v.    Dickins,    8    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  113,  473 

Chiles  v.Conley,2  Dana  (Ky.)  21,  549 
Chilton  V.Campbell,  2uBeav. 531,  480 
Ching  V.  Ching,  6  Vesey  282,  572 

Chinn  v.  Brelches,  42  Kan.  316, 

S.  C.  22  Pac.  K.  42<),  404,  1047 

Chipman  v.  Waterlniry,  59  Conn. 

496,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  289,  115 

Chippendale  v.  Masson,  4  Camp. 

174,  704 

Chippewa  Lumber  Co.  v.  Phoenix 

Ins.  Co.,  80  :\Iich.  116,  589 

Chism  v.  Schipper,  51  N.  J.  L.  1, 

S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  544,  601 

Chissom  v.  Barbour,  100  Ind.  1, 

186,  192,  630 
Chittenden  v.  Hobbs,  9  la.  417,  438 
Chittenden  v.  Methodist, etc.,  Ch., 

8  How.  Pr.  327,  1178,  1182 
Chivington  v.  Colorado,  etc.,  Co., 

9  Col.  597,  1195 
Choen  v.  State,  35  Ind.  209,  823 
Chollar,    etc.,  Co.    v.  AVilson,  66 

Cal.  374,  298 

Cholmondeley  v.  Clinton,  2  Jac. 

&  W.  1,  370,  376 

Choteau  v.  Thompson,  3  Ohio  St. 

424,  518 

Chouteau  v.  Jupiter  Iron  Works, 

83  Mo.  73,  558 

Chouteau  v.  Rice,  1  Minn.  24,  1178 
Chouteau  v.  Searcy,  8  Mo.  733,  516,524 
Chouteau  v.  Sherman,  11  Mo.  385,  465 
Chrisman    v.   Chrisman,   16  Ore. 

127,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  6,  558 

Christal  v.  Kellv,  88  N.Y.  285,  609 
Christein,  Matter  of,  11  J.  &S.(N. 

Y.)  523,  180 

Christian  v.  State,  86  Ga.  430,  S. 

C.  12  S.  E.  R.  645,  712 

Christian  v. Williams, 111  Mo.  429, 

S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  96,  457,  458 

Christian  Jensen  Co.,  Re,  128  N. 

Y.  530,  493 

Christian  L'nion  v.  Yount,  101  V. 

S.  352,  275 

Christie  v.  Barnes,  33  Kan.  317, 

S.  C.  6  Pac.  R.  599.  1027 

Christie  v.  Boganhis,  1  Barb.  Ch. 

167,  ^  488 

Christin  v.  Erwin,  125  111.  619,  S. 

C.  17  N.  E.  R.  707,  559 

Christv  V.  Garrity  (Kv.),22  S.AV. 

R.  Ia8,  ■  ()07 

Christv  V.  Home,  24  Mo.  242,  413 

Chrysler  v.  Ren(.is,43  N.  Y.  209,  1192 
ChuMnick  v.  Cleveland,  37  Minn. 

46(i,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  864,     458,  613 


Ixxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Chuck  V.  Cremer,  1  Cooper's  Ch. 

205,  1216 

Church    V.    Chicago,     etc.,     Co., 

(Mo.),  23S.  W.R.  1056,  915 

Church  V.  City  of  Milwaukee,  31 

Wis.  512,  30 

Church  V.  Crossman,  41  Iowa,  373, 

183,  1192 
Cluuch  V.  Holyoke  Mutual  Fire 
Ins.  Co.,  158  Mass.  475,  S.  C.  33 
N.  E.  R.  572,  740 

Church  V.  ^Milwaukee,  31  Wis.  512,  8 
Church  V.  Rho<les,6  How.  Pr.  281,  338 
Cliurchill  V.  Welsh,  47  Wis.  39,  177 
Churchman  v.  City  of  Indianapo- 
lis, 110  Ind.  259,  367 
Churchman   v.    Kansas   City,    49 

Mo.  App.  366,  1231 

Chute  V.  State,  19  Minn.  271,  813 

Cicero  v.Williamson,  91  Ind.  541,    202 
Cicero  Tp.  v.  Picken,122  Ind.  260, 

1105, 1146 
Cicero  Tp.  v.  The  Chicago   Nat. 

Bank,  127  Ind.  79,  430 

Cincinnati  v.  Bickett,  26  Ohio  St. 

49,  449 

Cincinnati  v.    Evans,  5   Ohio  St. 

594,  366 

Cincinnati  v.  White,  6  Pet.  431,      371 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Belle  Cen- 
tre, 48  Ohio  St.  273,  S.  C.  27  N. 
E.  R.  464,  608 

Cincinnati,  etc.,    Co.   v.    Carper, 

112  Ind.  26,  108 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Case,  122 

Ind.  310,  1163,  1169 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clifford, 

113  Ind.  460,  1235 
Cincinnati,  etc.,   Co.    v.   Gaines, 

104  Ind.  526,  1147 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rowe,  17 

Ind.  568,  237 

Cincinnati,  etc.    Co.  v.  Smith,  49 

Kan.  793,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  664,  1136 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  127 

Ind.  461,  491 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lev- 

iston,  97  Ind.  488,  641 

Cincinnati,    H.    &   D.  R.  R.  Co. 

V.  Street,  50  Ind.  225,  454 

Cincinnati.  I.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Smock,  133  Ind.  411,  1064 

Cincinnati,  I.,  St.  L.  &  C.  R.  R. 

Co.  V.  Cooper,  120  Ind.  469,  S. 

C.  6  L.  R.  A.  241,  1064 

Cincinnati,  I.  St.  L.  &  C.  R.  R. 

Co.  V.  Howard,  124  Ind.  280,  S. 

C.  8  L.  R.  A.  593,  1067 

Circuit  Court,  In  re,  1  New  Zea- 
land Court  of  App.  329,  143 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Cire  V.  Rightor,  11  La.  140,  1124 

Cissell  V.  Pulaski  Co.,  10  Fed.  R. 

891,  447 

Cissell  V.  Pulaski  Co.,  3  McCrary 

(U.  S.)  446,  451 

Citizens'  Bk.  v.  Bellocq,  19  La. 

Ann.  376,  1164 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Bolen,  121  Ind. 

301,  1149 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Brooks,  23  Fed. 

R.  21,  189 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Jorda's  Heirs, 
45  La.  Ann.  184,  S.  C.  11  So.  R. 
867,  570 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Payne,  21  La. 

Ann.  380,  472 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Rhutasel,  67  la. 

316,  512 

Citizens',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harris.  108 

Ind.  392,  1231 

Citizens',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shenango, 
etc.,  Co.,  138  Pa.  St.  22,  S.  C. 
20  Atl.  R.  947,  1213 

Citizens',    etc.,   Co.  v.    Short,  62 

Ind.  316,  798 

Citizens'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harris,  108 
Ind.  392,  S.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  299, 

207,  1139 
Citizens'  State  Bank  v.  Council 
Bluffs,  etc.,  Co.  (la.),  57  N.  W. 
R.  444,  1090 

Citizens'  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
loeby,  134  Ind.  563,  S.  C.  33  N. 
E.  R.  627,  1066 

City  V.  Nagle,  113  Ind.  425,  1003 

City  V.  Hardy,  98  Ind.  577,  781 

City  V.    Hudnut,    112    Ind.    542, 

91,  712  884 
City  V.  The  Mayor,  25  Hun  612,  119 
City   Bank  v.   Kent,  7  Ga.  283, 

784,  1071 
City  Bank  v.  Walden,  1  La.  Ann. 

46,  1178 

City  Bank  v.  Young,  43  N.  H.  457,     508 
City  Council  v.  O'Donnell,  29  S. 

Car.  355,  S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A.  632,      643 
Citv   Council   of   Montgomery  v. 
Wright,  72  Ala.  411,  S.  C.5  Am. 
&  Ehg.  Corp.  Cas.  642,  1050 

Citv  Ins.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Bank, 

68  111.  348,  281 

Citv  of  Abilene  v.  Hendricks,  36 

Kan.  196,  S.  C.  13  Pac.  R.  121,     1067 
City   of   Atchison   v.   Jansen,   21 

Kan.  560,  1060 

Citv  of  Aurora  v.  Bitner,  100  Ind. 

3'96,  549 

City  of  Aurora  v.Cobb.21  Ind.  492,   677 
Citv  of  Buffalo  v.  Holloway,  7  N. 
Y.  493,  527 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxv 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

ty  of  Camden  v.  Mulford,  26  N. 
J.L.  49,  324 

ty  of  Chicago  v.  ]\k'Cartliv,  75 
III.  (K)2,  ■  549 

tv  of  Cincinnati  v.  Evans,  5 
Ohio  St.  504,  366 

ty  of  Cincinnati  v.  White,  6 
Pet.  431,  371 

tv  of  Cohmibiis  v.  Bidlingnieier, 
f  Ohio  Circ.  Ct.  K.  136,  813 

tv  of  Cohiinbiis  v.  Strassner 
(Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.  5,  633 

tv  of  Delphi  v.  Lowery,  74  Ind. 
520,  712,  1206 

ty  of  Delphi  v.  Startznian,  104 
Ind. 443,  484 

ty  of  Denver  v.  Brown,  11  Col. 
337,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  214,  472 

tyof  Des  Moines  v.  Layman,  21 
la.  153,  1129 

ty  of  Elgin  v.  Goff,  38  111.  App. 
362,  365 

ty  of  Evansville  v.  Blend,  118 
Ind.  426,  258 

tv  of  Evansville  v.  Martin,  103 
Ind.  206,  1162,1163 

tv  of  f^vansville  v.  State,  118 
Ind.  426,        .  121 

ty  of  Erankiin  v.  Harter,  127 
Ind. 446,  525 

tv  of  Ft.  Scott  V.  Hickman,  112 
U.S.150,S.C.5Sup.Ct.R.  56,        384 
ty  of  Ft.  Smith  v.  McKibbin, 
41  Ark.  45,  366 

tyof  Ft.  Wayne  v.  Coombs,  107 
Ind.  75,  516,  524,  716,  740 

ty  of  Ft.  Wavne  v.  Patterson,  3 
Ind.  App.34,"S.C.29N.E.R.671,  549 
ty  of  Ft.  Worth  v.  Johnson,  84 
Tex.  137.  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  361,     549 
tv  of  Galveston   v.  Menard,  23 
Tex.  349,  366 

tv  of  Grand  Rapids  v.  Perkins, 
78  Mich.  93,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R. 
1037,  1081 

tv  of  Harrisburg  v.  Forster,  8 
Watts.  12,  367 

tv  of  Houston  V.  Jankowskie, 
76  Texas  368,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R. 
269,  383,  384 

tv  of  Indianapolis  v.  Gilmore, 
30  Ind.  414,  398 

tv  of  Indianapolis  v.  Huffer,  30 
Ind.  235,  739 

tvof  Indianapolis  V.Kingsbury, 
101  Ind.  200,  529 

tv  of  Indianapolis  v.  Lawver, 
38  Ind.  o4S.  l(i,S(),  1091 

tv  of  Indianapolis  v.  McAvoy, 
86  Ind.  587,  533 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-1244.'\ 

Citv  f>f  Indianapolis  v.  Patterson, 

33  Ind.  157,  1241 

Citv  of  Indianajiolis  v.  Patterson, 

ri2  Ind.  .S44,  381 

City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Scott,  72 

Ind.  196,  815 

City  of  Kansas  v.  Allen,  28   Mo. 

App.  133,  1237 

Citv  of  Kansas  v.  Knotts,  78  Mo. 

3i56,  214,  219 

Citv   of   Lafayette  v.  Nagle,  113 

Ind. 425,  370 

City  of    Lake  View  v.  Tate,  130 

111.  247,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  268,  545 
City  of  Logansport  v.  La  Rose,  99 

Ind.  117,  484 

City  of  Logansport  v.  Uhl,  99  Ind. 

531 ,  71 

Citv  of  Logansport  v.  Wright,  25 

Ind.  512,  1151,1158 

City  of  Los  Angeles  v.  Melius,  58 

Cal.  16,  1179 

City  of  Louisville  v.  Sav.  Bank, 

104  U.  S.  469,  379 

Citv  of  Mattoon  v.  Fallin,  113  111. 

249,  1052 

Citv   of   New   Albany  v.  Ray,  3 

Ind.  App.  321,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 

611,  1056 

Citv  of  New  Albany  V.White,  100 

Ind. 206,  484,  1212 

City  of  Newark  v.  Funk,  15  Ohio 

St.  462,  472 

City  of  Noblesville  v.  Lake   Erie 

&  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  130  Ind. 

1,  59 

Citv  of  North  Vernon  v.  Voegler, 

103  Ind.  314,  368,  370,  390 

City  of    Ottumwa  v.  Schaub,  52 

Iowa,  515,  134 

Citv  of   Peru  v.  Bearss,  55  Ind. 

57'(),  246 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Miller,  49 

Pa.  St.  440,  245 

Citv  of  Philadelphia  v.  Wetherbv 

lo  Phihi.  403,  ■    289 

Citv  of  Plattsmouth  v.  Boeck,  32 

Nel).  297,  S.  C.  49  N.W.  R.  167,  1233 
Citv  of  Richmond  v.   Davis,  103 

Ind. 449,  163 

City  of  Richmond  v.  Poe,  24  Gratt. 

149,  366 

Citv  of  San  Francisco  v.  Fulde,  37 

Cal.  358,  371 

Citv  of  Sevmour  v.  Cummins,  119 

Ind.  148,  1232 

Citv  of  Shawneetown  v.  Baker,  85 

111.  5(i3.  581 

Citv  of  Somerville  v.  Dickerman, 

127  Mass.  272,  581 


Ixxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\_Befe7-ences  arc  to  Paries,  VoJ.  I,  pp 
City  of  South  Bend  v.  Hardie,  98 

Ind.  577,  781 

City  of  South  Bend  v.  Universitj^ 

of  Notre  Dame,  69  Ind.  344,  403 

Citv  of  Springtield  v.   Dalby,  139 

111.  34,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  860, 

790,  791,  814 
Citv  of  Springfield  V.  Sleeper,  115 

Mass.  587,  179 

Citv  of  St.  Joseph  v.  Farrell,  106 

Mo.  437,  170 

Citv  of  St.  Joseph  v. Farrell  (Mo.), 

17  S.  W.  R.  497,  170 

Citv  of  St.  Louis  v.  Missouri  Pac. 

Rv.  Co.,  114  Mo.  13,  S.  C.  21  S. 

W.  R.  202,  1026 

Citv  of  St.  Louis   v.    Shields,   62 

Mo.  247,  144 

City     of     Topeka     v.     Boutwell 

(Kan.),  35  Pac.  R.  819,  1087 

Citv  of  Topeka  v.    Heitman,  47 

Kan.  7.39,  S.C.  28  Pac.R.  1096,     1080 
Citv  of  Visalia  v.  Jacob,  65  Cal. 

434,  S.  C.  6  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 

Cases  115,  366 

Citv  of  AVarsaw   v.    Dunlap,   112 

Ind.  576,  549,  554 

City  of  Westminster  v.  Shipley, 

68Md.  610,  S.C.  13Atl.  R.  365,    1237 
City  of  Wheeling  v.  Campbell,  12 

W.  Va.  36,  366,  376 

Citv  of  Wvandotte  v.  Gibson,  25 

Kan.  236,  1093 

Citv  of  Wvandotte  v.  White,   13 

Kan.  191',  1091,  1097 

Clackner  v.  State,  33  Ind.  412,  806 
Claffin  v.  Briant,  58  Ga.  414,  413 

Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  U.S.  130,  337 
Clancey  v.  Losey,  65  Hun  (N.Y.) 

625,  570 

Clancv  v.  Reis,  5  Wash.  371,  S.  C. 

31  Pac.  R.  931,  1051 

Clancv  v.  Stephens,  92  Ala.  577, 

S.  C.  9  So.  R.  522,  324 

Clanton  v.  Price,  90  N.  Car.  96,  594 
Clanton  v.  Ruffner,78  Cal.  268,  S. 

C.  20  Pac.  R.  676,  628 

Clapp  V.  Beardsley,  1  Vt.  151,  314 
Clapp  V.  Bell,  4  Mass.  99,  469 

Clapp  v.  Bowman,  22  Neb.  198,  S. 

C.  34  X.  W.  R.  162,  163 

Clapp  v.  Fullerton,  34  N.Y.  190,  739 
Clapp  v.  Hawlcv,  97  N.  Y.  610,  182 
Clapp  V.  Martin;  33  111.  App.  438,  1155 
Clapp  v.  Thaxter,  7  Gray  384,  1186 
Clapp  V.  Thomas,  5  Allen  (Mass.) 

158,  1040 

Clapp  V.  Wilson,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.) 

285,  801 

Claremont  v.  Carlton,  2  N.  H.  369,  533 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Clarion,  etc.,  Co.,   v.    Hamilton, 

127  Pa.  St.  1,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R. 

752,  1199 

Clarion  Nat.  Bank  v.  Breneman, 

114  Pa.  St.  315,  S.  C.  5  Cent.  R. 

478,  186 

Clark  v.  Adams,  33  Mich.  159,  453 
Clark  V.  Averhill,  31  Vt.  612,  S.  C. 

76  Am.  Dec.  131,  474 

Clark  V.  Bever,  139  U.  S.  96,  303 

Clark  v.  Bigelow,  16  Me.  246,  737 

Clark  V.  Boggs,  6  Ala.  809,  198 

Clark  V.  Bond,  29  Ind.  555,  807 

Clark  V.  Brown,  70  Ind.  405,  1114r 

Clark  V.  Bryan,  16  Md.  171,  604 

Clark  V.  Clough,  62  N.  H.  693,  621 
Clark   V.  Commonwealth,  29  Pa. 

St.  129,  216 

Clark  V.  Crego,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

599  551 

Clark  V.  Dayton,  6  Neb.  192,  528 

Clark  V.  DePew,  25  Pa.  St.  509,  S. 

C.  64  Am.  Dec.  717,  181,  1223 

Clark  V.  Deutsch,  101  Ind.  491,  1143 
Clark  V.  Donaldson,  49  How.  Pr. 

63,  1143,  1207 

Clark  V.  Easton,  146  Mass.  43,  215 
Clark  V.  Fitch,  .32  Nefe.  511,  S.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  374,  1183 

Clark  V.  Flint,  22  Pick.  231,  152 

Clark  V.  Gilmer,  28  Ala.  265,  430 

Clark  V.  Hall,  7  Paige,  382,  1202 

Clark   V.  Hammerle,   27   Mo.  55, 

1059,  1072 
Clark  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

36  Mo.  202,  1051 

Clark  V.  Hodges,  65  Vt.  273,  S.  C. 

26  Atl.  R.  726,  1219 

Clark  V.  Hogle,  52  111.  427,  582 

Clark  V.  Iowa  City,  20  Wall.  583,  366 
Clark  V.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co., 

44  Ind.  248,  481 

Clark  V.  Lamb,  8  Pick.  415,  S.  C. 

19  Am.  Dec.  332,  192 

Clark  V.  Lamb,  2  Allen,  396,  235 

Clark  V.  Lawrence,  6  Jones'  Eq. 

(N.  Car.)  83,  487 

Clark  V.  LillielDridge,  45  Kan.  567, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  43,  610 

Clark  V.  Lovering,  37  Minn.  120, 

S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  776,  1216 

Clark  v.  McCrary,  80  Ala.  110,  1227 
Clark  V.  Melton,  19  S.  Car.  498, 

183,  1192 
Clark  V.  Miller,  89  Pa.  St.  242,  373 
Clark  V.  Missouri,  etc.,   Ry.  Co., 

.35  Kan.  .350,  1095 

Clark  V.  Moodv,  17  Mass.  145,  .362 
Clark  V.  Mullenix,  11  Ind.  532,  402 
C^lark  V.  Patterson,  58  Vt.  676,        436 


TAHLK    OF    CASES. 


Ixxvii 


{^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  J,  pp 
Clark  V.  People,  2  111.  117,  630 

Clark  V.  Pope,  2\)  Flu.  238,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  o.S(;.  565 

Clark  V.  Hals,  71  la.  189,  S.  C.  32 

N.  W.  R.  327,  1089 

Clark  V.  Ran<lall,  76  Am.  Dec.  252,  564 
Clark  V.  Reeelow,  16  :\Iaine,  246,  738 
Clark  V.  Rcniitrer,  (i(i  la.  507,  799 

Clark  V.  Riilgely,  1  Md.  Ch.  70, 

195,  496 
Clark  V.  Roberts,  1  111.  285,  409 

Clark  V.  Rugg,  20  Fla.  861,  226,227 
Clark  V.  Sidwav,  142  V.  S.  682,  S. 

C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  327,  1117,  1122 

Clark  V.  Smith,  13  Pet.  195,  270,  275 
Clark  V.  State,  4  lud.  156,  738 

Clark  V.  State,  12  Ohio  483,  S.  C. 

40  Am.  Dee.  4S1,  778 

Clark  V.  State,  23  Tex.  App.  260,  820 
Clark  V.  State,  125  Ind.  1, 

185,  1109,  1151,  1236 
Clark  V.  Tarb.ell,  58  N.  H.  88,  302 

Clark  V.  Thompson,  47  111.  25,  S. 

C.  95  Am.  Dec.  457,  443 

Clark  V.  Trail,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  35,  380 
Clark  V.  Vorce,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

193,  515 

Clark  V.  Wise,  40  N.  Y.  612,  1139 

Clark  V.  Wise,  39  How.  Pr.  97,  S. 

C.  46  N.  Y.  612,  1135 

Clark  Civil  Tp.  v.  Brookshire,  114 

Ind.  437,  739 

Clark  Co.  v.  Brod,   3  Ind.   App. 

585,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  430,  527 

Clarke  v.  Diitcher,  9  Cow.  674,  364 
Clarke  v.  Kane,  37  Mo.  App.  258,  182 
Clarke  v.  Mathewson,  15  Pet.  164,  336 
Clarke  v.  Safferv,  Rv.  &  M.  126, 

S.  C.  21  Eng.  Com!  L.  715,  737 

Clarke  v.  Watson,  18  C.  B.  N.  S. 

278,  407 

Clarke  V.  Western  Assurance  Co., 

146  Pa.  St.  561,  S.  C.  28  Am.  St. 

R.  821,  51 

Clark's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  447,         201 
Clarkson  v.  Meyer,  14  N.  Y.  Supp. 
.  144,  669 

Clarkson  v.   Rvan,  17  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  251.  ■  170 

Clarv  V.  Hoagland,  6  Cal.  685,  322 
Clawson  v.  Lowry,  7  Blackf.  140,  704 
Claxton  V.  Adams,  1  Mc Arthur, 

496,  514 

Clav  V.  Citv  Council  of  Montgom- 
ery (Ala"),  14  So.  R.  646,  1159 
Clav  V.  Clark.  76  Ind.  161,  1229 
Clav  V.  Clav,  7  Bush  95,  372 
Clay  V.  Hildebrand,34  Kan. 694,  1192 
Clav  V.  Ransome,  1  Munf.  (Va.) 

454,  1109 


i-ao-j,  v<ii.  n.pp.  uu:i-J-J44.'\ 

Clay  V.  Smith,  3  Pet.  411,  285 

Clay  Co.  V.  Simonseu,  1  Dak.  403, 

21,  1103 
Clayes  v.  Ferris,  10  \'t.  112,  706 

Claypool  V.  Houston,  12  Kan.  324,  446 
Clayton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  67 

la.  238,  '  813 

Clayton  v.  Clayton,  4  Col.  410,  280 
Clayton  v.  Mitchell.  1  Del.  Co.  32,  477 
Clayton   v.  State,  31    Tex.  Crim. 

App.489,S.C.22S.W.Rep.404,     798 
Cleagev.  Hyden,6  Heisk.(Tenn.) 

73,  "  653,  654 

Cleaveland    v.    Dixon,    4    J.    J. 

Marsh. (Kv.)  226,  599 

Clegg  V.  Fithian,  32  Ind.  90,  1198 

Clegg  V.  Waterbury,  88  Ind.  21, 

1087,  1209 
Cleland  v.  Hedlev,  5  R.  I.  163,  592 
Cleland    v.    Walfbridge,    78    Cal. 

358,  S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  730,  1231 

Clelland  v.  People,  4  Col.  244,  149 
Clem  V.  State,  31  Ind.  480,  1076 

Clem  v.  State,  33  Ind.  418,  121 

Clem  V.  State,  42  Ind.  420,  S.  C. 

13  Am.  R.  369,  660 

Clemans  v.  Buffenbarger,  106  Ind. 

16,  1048 

Clemens  v.  Comfort,  26  La.  Ann. 

269,  314 

Clement  v.  Foster,  99  N.  Car.  255, 

S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  186,  1184 

Clement   v.    Hadlock,    13    N.    H. 

185,  585 

Clementine  v.  State,  14  Mo.  112,     800 
Clements   v.    La.    Electric    Light 
Co.,  44   La.  Ann.  692,  S.  C.  16 
L.  R.  A.  43,  547 

Clements  v.  Moore,  6  Wall.  299,  1128 
Clements  v.  State,  21   Tex.  App. 

258,  31 

Cleneav  v.  Junction  R.  R.  Co.,  26 

Ind.  375,  475 

Cleveland,  In  re  (N.  J.),  S.  C.  17 

Atl.  772,  118 

Cleveland  v.  Burrill,  25  Barb.  532,  281 
Cleveland  v.  Chamberlain, 1  Black 

(U.  S.)  419,  248,  1137 

Cleveland  v.  Pollard,  37  Ala.  556,  434 
Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  I.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Asburv,  120  Ind.  289,  S.  C.  22 
N.  E.  R.  140.  1092 

Cleveland,  C.  C.  c<t  St.  L.  Rv.  Co. 
V.  Baddeley  (111.),  36  N.  E.  R. 
965,  1076 

Cleveland.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Rv.  Co. 

V.  Doerr,  41  111.  App.  530,"  1092 

Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Grames.  135  Ind.  44,  S!  C.  34 
N.  E.  R.  714,  1105 


Ixxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.Ry.  Co. 

V.  Johnson,  7  Ind.  App.  441,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  1004,  1096,  1097 

Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 

V.  Monaahan,  140  111.  474,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.^R.  869,  816,  1117 

ClevelaiKl,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Closser,  126 

Ind.  348,  S.C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  593, 

1145,  1184 
Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson, 

10  Ohio  St.  591,  1142 

Clevehind,  etc.,    Co.  v.  Mara,  26 

Ohio  St.  185,  604 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.R. Co. v. Newell, 

104  Ind.  264,  101 

Cleveland, etc.,  R.R. Co. v.Wynant, 

100  Ind.  160,  71,  529 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.R. Co. v.  Jewett, 

37  Ohio  St.  649,  496 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.  v.Terry, 

8  Ohio  St.  570,  546 

Cleveland,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Gra- 

nier  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.  714,        548 
Cleveland,  etc.,  Ry.    Co.  v.  Wv- 

nant,  119  Ind.  539,  1211 

Cleveland  Paper  Co.  v.  Banks,  15 

Neb.  20,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Rep.  334,     820 
Clevengerv.  Hansen,  44  Kan.  182, 

S.  C.  24Pac.  R.  61,  187 

Clews  V.  Bank,  105  N.  Y.  398,  S. 

C.  11  N.  E.  R.  814,  692 

Cliffton  V.  Granger  (Iowa),  53  N. 

W.  Rep.  316,  780,  1090 

Clift  V.  Moses,  112  N.  Y.  426,  789 

Clift  V.  Shockley,  77  Ind.  297,  518 

Clifton  V.  United  States,  4  How. 

242,  503 

Clifton  V.  Wynne,  81  N.  C.  160,  139 
Cline  V.  State,  51  Ark.  140,  803 

CHne  V.  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.,  41  111. 

App.  516,  1239 

Clingman  v.  Irvine,40Tll.App.606,  736 
CHnk  V.  Gunn,  90  Mich.  135,  S.C. 

51  N.  W.  R.  193,  365 

Clinton  v.  Englebrecht,  13  Wall. 

434,  665 

Clinton  v.  State,  33  Ohio  St.  27,  799 
Clodfelter  v.  Ilulett,  72  Ind.  137,  528 
Clodfelter  v.  Hulett,  92  Ind.  426, 

676,  1210 
Clohertv,  In  re,  2  Wash.  137,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  1064,  119 

Clore's  Case,  8  Gratt.  606,  660 

Close  v.  Gillespey,  3  Johns.  526,  187 
Close  v.  Samm,  27  la.  503,  813 

Cloud  V.  Holden  (Mc),  20  S.  W. 

R.  695,  566 

Cloud  V.  Inhabitants,  86  Mo.  357,  328 
Clough    V.  ■  State,    7     Neb.    320, 

665,  668,  707,  1121,  1122 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Clouser  V.  Ruckman,  104  Ind.. 588, 

1169,  1233 
Clouston  V.  Gray,  48  Kan.  31,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  Rep.  983,  622 

Clow  V.  Brown  (Ind.), 31  N.E.R. 

361,  503 

Clowes   V.  Dickenson,  8  Cowen, 

328,  254,  1178 

Clowes  V.  Staffordshire,  etc.,  Co., 

L.  R.  8  Ch.  App.  125,  487 

Clovd  V.  Trotter,  118  111.  391,  275,  444 
Cluverius  v.  Com.,  81  Va.  787,  653 
Clymer  v.  Willis,  3  Cal.  363,  197 

Clymore  v.  Williams,  77  111.  618,  463 
Coad  V.  Coad,  41  Wis.  23,  333,  608 
Coan  V.  Clow,  83  Ind.  417,  451 

Coan  V.Grimes, 63  Ind. 21,  1217,  1219 
Coates  V.  Coates,  1  Duer  664,  1180 

Coates  V.  Sangston,  5  Md.  121,  1064 
Coates  V.  AVilkes,  92  N.  Car.  376,  1149 
Cobb  V.  Com.,  3  T.  B.  Monr.  391,  1223 
Cobb  V.  Dolphin  Mfg.  Co.,    108 

N.  Y.  463,  593 

Cobb  V.  Dortch,  52  Ga.  548,  600 

Cobb  V.  Griffith,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Mo. 

90,  545 

Cobb  V.  Judge,  43  Mich.  289,  605 

Cobb  V.  Kurtz,  40  Ind.  323,  1081 

Cobb  V.  People,  84  111.  511,  115,  228 
Cobb  V.  Rice,  130  Mass.  231,  312 

Cobb  V.  State,  78  Ga.  801,  1163 

Cobb  V.Thompson,  1  A.  K.  Marsh. 

(Kv)507,  373 

Cobbey  v.  Wright,  29  Neb.  274,  S. 

C.  45  N.  W.  R.  460,  313 

Coble  V.  Coble,  79  N.  Car.  589,  S. 

C.  28  Am.  R.  338,  820 

Coble  V.  Eltzroth,  125  Ind.  429,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  544,  823, 1075 

Coble  V.  Nonemaker,78  Pa.  St. 501,  471 
Coble  V.  State,  31  Ohio  St.  100,  798 
Coburn  v.  Ames,  57  Cal.  201,  498 

Coburn  v.  Murray,  2  Me.  336,  1227 
Coburn  v.  Smart,  53  Cal.  742,  1184 
Cocheco  R.  R.  v.   Farrington,  26 

N.  H.  428,  627 

Cochran  v.  Amnion,  16  111.  316,  1161 
Cochran  v.  Bartle,  91  Mo.  636,  600 
Cochran  v.  Loring,  17  Ohio  409,  173 
Cochran  v.  O'Keefe,  34  Cal.  554,  1128 
Cochran  v.  Toher,  14  Minn.  385, 

553,  554 
Cochran   v.    Young,    104  Pa.    St. 

333,  384 

Cochrane     v.     Boston,    4    Allen 

(Mass.)  177,  543 

Cocke  V.  Halsey,  16  Pet.  71,  217 

Cocker  v.  Franklin,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

Sumn.  (U.  S.)  530,  555 

Cockey  v.  Leister,  12  Md.  124,         198 


TABLK    OF    CASKS. 


Ixxix 


\^Rpfflrences  arc  to  Paf/rs,   To/.  /,  pp 
Cockey  v.  Milne,  IG  Md.  200,  4fi8 

Cockredge  v.   Funshaw,  1  Doug. 

(K.  B.)  119,  1025 

Codman  v.  Rogers,  10  Pick.  112,  360 
Cody  V.  Hougli,  20  111.  43,  50G 

Codding  v.  Wood,  112  Pa.  St.  371, 

539,  1055 
Coe  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Fed. 

R.  775,  478 

Coey  V.  Lehman,  79  111.  173,  40(5 

Cofer  V.  Schening  (Ala.),  13  So. 

R    1*^3  1223 

Coffee  V.' Em igh,  15  Col.  184,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  A.  125,  570 

Coffee  V.  Gates,  28  Ark.  43,  436,  456 
Coffee  V.  Groover,  20  Fla.  64,  1121 
Coffelt  V.  State,  19  Tex.  App.  436,  803 
Coffev  V.  Proctor,  etc.,  Co.,  20  S. 

W.'R.  2S6,  293 

Coffey  V.  Wilkerson,  1  :\Ietc.  101,  365 
Coffev  V.  Wilson,  2  Ala.  701,  342 

Cottin  V.  Coffin,  4  Mass.  1,  526 

Coffin  V.  Cottle,  9  Pick.  287,  217 

Coffin  V.    Kemp,  4   G.   Gr.    (la.) 

119,  1195 

Coffin  V.  Knott,  2  Greene  582,  S. 

C.  52  Am.  Dec.  537,  1178 

Coffinbury  v.  Ilorrill,  5  Cal.  493,  140 
Coffman  v.  P>randhoefer,  33  Neb. 

279,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  6, 

313,  604,  608,  613 
Coffman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. 

(Iowa),  57  N.  W.  R.  955,  1095 

Cofrode  v.  Gartner,  79  Mich.  332, 

S.  C.  30  Cent.  Law  Jour.  434,  7 

L.  R.A.511,  454,610 

Cogan  V.  Ebden,  1  Burr.  383,  1124 
Coggs  V.  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Raym. 

91 1  963 

Coghill  V.  Boring,  15  Cal.  213,  520 
Coghill   V.  Hord,    1    Dana  (Ky.) 

350,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  148,  595 

Coglar  V.  Coglar,  1  Ves.  Jr.  94,  476 
Cogshall  V.  Spnrrv,  47  Kan.  448, 

S.  C.  28Pac.  R.'l54,  1168 

Cogswell  V.  Dolliver,  2  Mass.  217,  361 
Cogswell  V.  Schley,  50  Ga.  481,  150 
Cohee  v.  Baer,  134  Ind.  375,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  920,  293 

Cohen.  In  re,  5  Cal.  494,  195 

Cohen  v.  Hamill,  8  Kan.  621,  1199 
Cohens    v.   State   of    Virginia,   6 

Wheat.  (U.  S.)  399,  49,  202,  256 

Cohn  V.  Brownstone,  93  Cal.  362, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  953,  619 

Cohn  V.  Heimbauch,  86  Wis.  176, 

S.  C.  56  N.  AV.  R.  638,  801 

Cohn  V.  Runielv,  74  Ind.  120,  1048 
Cohn  V.  Scheuer,  115  Pa.  St.  178, 

1112,  1122 


I-aO:>,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-I244.] 
Coit  V.  Elliott,  28  Ark.  294,  630 

Coit  V.  Haven,  30  Conn,  190,  S.  C. 

79  Am.  Dec.  244,  127,  319,  327 

Colby  V.  Coates,  6  Cush.  558,  198 

Colby  V.  Ree.l,  99  V.  S.  560,  396 

Colchen  v.  Ninde,  120  Ind.  88,  1162 
Colcord  V.  Fletcher,  50  Me.  398,  595 
Cole  V.  Cheshire,  1  Gray  441.  312 

Cole   V.    Cunningham,   133    U.  S. 

107,  S,  C.    10   Suj).  Ct.  R.  269, 

282,  486 
Cole  V.  Curtis,  Ki  Minn.  182,  552 

Cole  V.  Driskill,  1  Blackf.  16,  1025 
Cole  V.  Hebb,  7  Gill   &  J.  (Md.) 

20,  1055 

Cole  V.  Hocha,  21  La.  Ann.  613,  439 
Cole  V.  Jessup,  10  N.  Y.  96,  738 

Cole  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.  Ry.  Co., 

95  INIich.  77,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  638,  800 
Cole  V.  McGIathrv,  9  Me.  131,  367 
Cole  V.  ]McKev,  66  Wis.  500,  S.  C. 

67  Am.  R.  293,  89 

Cole  V.  Parker,  7  la.  167,  S.  C.  71 

Am.  Dec.  439,  469 

Cole  V.  Peniwell,  5  Blackf.  175,  423 
Cole  V.  Swan,  4  G.  Greene  32,  1128 
Cole  V,  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

33  Minn.  227,  412 

Cole  V.  Wooster,  2  Conn.  203,  197 

Cole  V.  AVright,  70  Ind.  179,  360 

Cole    Countv   v.    Dallmeyer,    101 

Mo.  57,  S:  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  687, 

152,  153 
Colee     V.     State,     75     Ind.     511, 

625,  1212,  1230 
Colegrove  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

20  N.  Y.  492,  1024 

Coleman  v.  Barnes,  33  Ind.  93,  192 
Coleman  v.  Bell,  4  N.  Mex.  46,  S. 

C.  12  Pac.  R.  657,  1168 

Coleman  v.   Coleman    (Ind.),  31 

N.  E.  R.  75,  349 

Coleman  v.  Coleman,  3  Dana  398, 

S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec.  86,  292,  443 

Coleman    v.    Commonwealth,   25 

Graft.  (Va.)  865,  519 

Coleman  V.  Drane,  116  Mo.  387, 

S.  C.  22  S.  AV.  R.  801,  1064 

Coleman  v.  Flovd,  131  Ind.  330, 

168,  240,  266,  1131 
Coleman  v.  Grubb,  23  Pa.  St.  393,  585 
Coleman  v.  Henderson,   12   Am. 

Dec.  290,  1111 

Coleman  v.  Holmes,  44  Ala.  124,  382 
Coleman  v.  Ormond,  60  Ala.  328,  193 
Coleman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  38 

:SIinn.  260,  S.  C.  36  N.  W.  R. 

638,  1090,  1107 

Coleman  v.  State,  111  Tnd.  563, 

665,  824,  1171,  1207 


Ixxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Coleman  v.  Thurmond,  56  Tex. 

514,  366 

Coleman  v.  Wade,  6  N.  Y.  44,         597 
Coleman  v.  Whitney,  62  Vt.  123, 

tS.  C  9  Lawv.  K.  Anno.  517, 

395,  570 
Coleman's  Case,  2  City  H.  Rec. 

89,  ()57 

Coles  V.  Peck,  96  Ind.  333,  588 

Colglazier  v.  Colglazier,  124  Ind. 

196,  1232 

Collar  V.  Collar,  86  Mich.  507,  S. 

C.  13  L.  R.  A.  621,  505 

College  Corner,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moss, 

77  fnd.  139,  487 

Collev  V.   Westbrook,  57  Me.   181, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  R.  30,  549 

Collier  v.  Falk,  66  Ala.  223,  613 

Collier  v.  Nokes,  2  C.  &  K.  1012,  32 
Collier  v.  White,  67  Miss.  133,  S. 

C.  6  So.  R.  618,  400 

Collier  V.  White  (Ala.),  12  So.  R. 

385,  597 

Collinge  v.  Havwood,  1  P.  &,  D. 

502,  "  363 

Collins  V.  Bennett,  46  N.  Y.  490,  165 
Collins  V.  Brown,  45  Minn.  186, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  719,  313 

Collins  V.  Burns,  16  Col.  7,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  145,  661 
Collins  V.  Collins,  100  Ind.  266,  1230 
Coll'ins  V.  Collins,  28  L.  J.  Ch.  184, 

S.  C.  26  Beav.  306,  573 

Collins  V.  Douglass,  1  Gray  167,  1140 
Collins  V.  Dresslar,  133  Ind.  290, 

S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  882,  1145 

Collins  V.  Duffv,  7  La.  Ann.  39,  470 
Collins  V.  Freas,  77  Pa.  St.  493, 

598,  600 
Collins  V.  Friend,  21  La.  Ann.  7,  473 
Collins  V.  Gibbs,  2  Burr.  899, 

322,  1196 
Collins  V.Houston,  138  Pa.  St.  481,  539 
Collins  V.  Hydon,  58  Hun  605,  S. 

C. 12  N.  Y.  S.  581,  1146 

Collins  V.  Levelle,  44  Vt.  230,  33 

Collins  V.  Loyal,  56  Ala.  403,  321 

Collins  V.  Mack,  31  Ark.  684,  802 

Collins  V.  Makepiece,  13  Ind.  448,  1113 
Collins  V.  Maghee,  32  Ind.  268,  1165 
Collins  V.  McCartv,  68  Tex.  150, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  475,  373 

Collins  V.  North  British,  etc.,  Ins. 

Co.,  91  Tenn.  432,  S.  C.  19  S.W. 

R   5^5  378 

Collins  V.  Powell,  19  S.W.  R.  578,  314 
Collins  V.  State,  8  Ind.  344,  203 

Collins  V.  Thayer,  74  111.  138,  364 

Colling  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Co., 

27  Ind.  11,  1147 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Collins  V.  Walling,  6  La.  Ann.  702,  456 
CoUinson  v.  Teal,  4  Savvy.  241,  280 
Collinson's  Case,  18  Ves.  Jr.  353,  477 
Colliss  V.  Hector,  L.  R.  10  Eq.  334,  287 
Coloma   V.    Eaves,   92  U.  S.  484, 

165,  324,  427 
Colorado  Central  R.R.Co.v.Allen, 

13  Col.  229,  B.C.  22  Pac.  R.  605,      680 
Colorado  Central  R.R. Co. v. Hum- 
phreys, 16  Col.  34,  S.  C.  26  Pac. 

R.  165,  646 

Colorado,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Godding,  2 

Col.  App.  1,  S.C.  29  Pac.  R.  529,  1229 
Colrick  V.   Swinburne,  105  N.  Y. 

503,  S.  C.  12  N.  E.  R.  427,      370,559 
Colt  V.  Colt,  48  Fed  R.  385,  266 

Colt  V.  Owens,  90  N.  Y.  368,  553 

Colt  V.  Sixth  Ave.  R.  R.  Co.,  49  N. 

Y.671,  1041 

Coltart  V.  Allen,  40  Ala.  155,  313 

Coltart  V.  Laughinghouse,  38  Ala. 

190,  ^  520 

Colton  V.  Beardsley,  38  Barb.  29,  133 
Colton  V.  Onderdonk,  69  Cal.  155,  301 
Colton  V.  Rupert,  60  Mich.  318,  S. 

C.  27  N.  W.  R.  520,  448 

Columbia  County  v.Branch,31  Fla. 

62,  S.  C.  12  So.  R.  650,  1228 

Columbia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nat.  Bank, 

etc.,  52  Minn.  224,  S.  C.  53  N.W. 

R.  1061,  1220 

Columbia,  etc.,  R.  R.  v.  Gibbes, 

28  S.  Car.  60,  1205 

Columbia,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.  v.  Haw- 
thorne, 144  U.  S.  202,  S.  C.  12 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  591,  1052 

Columbia  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lawrence,  2 

Pet.  25,  715 

Columbia  Mill  Co.  v.  Nat.  Bank, 

52  Minn.  224,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R. 

1061,  1080 

Columbus  v.  Bidlingmeier,  7  Ohio 

Circ.  Ct.  R.  136,  813 

Columbus  v.  Goetchius,  7  Ga.  139,  654 
Columbus  V.  Strassner  (Ind,),  34 

N.  E.  R.  5,  633 

Columbus,  etc.,  Co.  v.  The  Board, 

etc.,  65  Ind.  427,  115 

Columbus  &W.  R.R. Co. v.Ludden, 

89  Ala.  612,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  471, 

S.  C.  31  Cent.  L.  J.  89,  554 

Colvin,  In  re.  3  Md.  Ch.  278,  497 

Colvin  v.  Buckle,  8  M.  &  W.  680,  363 
Colvin  V.  Reed,  55  Pa.St.375,  287,  289 
Colwell  V.  Brower,  75  111.  516,  669 
Colwell  V.  Garfield  Nat.  Bank,  119 

N.  Y.  408,  494 

Combination,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morgan, 

95  Cal.  548,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R. 

1102,  1224 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxi 


lEeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Combs  V.  State,  75  Ind.  215,  821 

Combs  V.  Wyckoff,  1  Caines  (N. 

Y.)  147,  590 

Comer  v.  Hart,  7'J  Ala.  389,  503 

Comerford  v.  State,  23  Oliio  St. 

599,  024 

Comet  Consolidated  Mining  Co. 

V.  Frost,   15  Col.  310,  S.  C.  25 

Pac.  R.  506,  423,  441 

Commerce  Bank  v.  Rutland,  etc., 

R.R.Co.,  10  How.  ]'r.(N.Y.)  1,     441 
Commercial  Bank  v.  Davidson,  18 

Ore.  57,  S.C.  22  Pac.  R.  517,        310 
Commercial  Bank  v.  Hughes,  17 

Wend.  (N.Y.)  94,  516 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Union  Bank, 

11  N.  Y.  203,  511 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Whitehead, 

4  Ala.  637,  512 

Commercial  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mehlman, 

48  111.  313,  628 

Commercial   Union,    etc.,  Co.  v. 

Hocking,  2  Am.  St.  R.  562,     588,  589 
Commissioners  v.  Bolles,  94  U.  S. 

104,  134,  165,  324 

Commissioners    v.    Bond,  3   Col. 

411,  472 

Commissioners  v.  Clark,  94  U.  S. 

278,  1041,  1055 

Commissioners  v.  Hall,  7  Watts. 

(Pa.)  290,  205,  206 

Commissioners  v.  Miller,  7  Kan. 

479,  S.  C.  12  Am.  R.  425,     108,  1002 
Commissioners  v.  Young,  18  Kan. 

440,  529 

Commissioners    v.    Younger,    29 

Cal.  147,  S.C.  87  Am.  Dec.  164,     605 
Commissioners  Court  v.  Thomp- 
son, 18  Ala.  694,  332 
Commissioners  of  Knox  County 

V.  Aspinwall,  21   How.   (U.  S.') 

539,  134,  165,  315,  324 

Commonwealth    v.    Andrews,   97 

Mass.  543,  1217 

Commonwealth  v.  Armstrong,  158 

:\Iass.  78,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  1032,     789 
Commonwealth  v.  Austin,  7  Gray 

(Mass.)  51,  822 

Commonwealth  v.Barrv, 116  Mass. 

1,  ■  308 

Commonwealth  v.  Barrv,  9  Allen 

(Mass.)  276,  "        1069,  1071 

Connnonwealth    v.    Billings,    97 

Mass.  405,  803 

Commonwealth     v.    Brown,    121 

Mass.  69,  809 

Commonwealth     v.    Brown,    147 

Mass.  585,  S.  C.  9   Am.  St.   R. 

736,  225,  654,  656,  663 

F 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Commonwealth  v.    Buccieri,    153 

Pa. St.  535, S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  228,     819 
Commonwealth    v.    Buckley,   147 

Mass.  581,  S.C.  18  N.  K.  R.  571,    542 
Commonwealth  v.  Buzzell,16  Pick. 

(.Mass.)  153,  661,  663 

Commonwealth  v.  Call,  21  Pick. 

(Mass.)  509,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec. 

284,  1106,  1107,  1171 

Commonwealth    v.    Caponi,    155 

Mass.  5;!4,  S.  C.  30  N.  K.  R.82,    541 
Commonwealth  v.  Carpenter,  100 

:\Iass.  204,  308 

Commonwealth  v.  Carrington,  116 

Ma.ss.  37,  1118 

Commonwealth  v.  Coe,  115  Mass. 

481,  30 

Commonwealth  v. Commissioners, 

37  Pa.  St.  237,  337 

Commonwealth  v.  Conyngham,  66 

Pa.  St.  99,  298 

Commonwealth   v.    Cortley,    118 

Mass.  1,  1112 

Commonwealth   v.    Costello,    120 

Mass.  358,  31,  32 

Commonw'ealth   v.   Costello,   128 

IMass.  88,  1116 

Commonwealth    v.    Costlev,    118 

Mass.  16,  ■  308 

Commonwealth  v.  Cunningham, 

104  Mass.  545,  29,  541 

Commonwealth  v.  Dandridge,   2 

Va.  Cases,  408,  137 

Commonwealth  v.  Davidson,   91 

Ky.  162,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  53,      626 
Commonwealth  v.  Dooly,  6  Gray 

(Mass.)  360,  1107 

Commonwealth    v.    Durfee,     100 

Mass.  146,  1118 

Commonwealth    v.    Eastman,     1 

Cush.  189,  S.C. 48  Am.  Dec.  596,    707 
Commonwealth   v.    Edwards,    12 

Cush.  187,  1170 

Commonwealth    v.     Felton,    101 

Mass.  204,  308 

Commonwealth  v.  Flannigan,  137 

INIass.  560,  1171 

Commonwealth  v.    Fletcher,   157 

Mass.  14,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  687,     220 
Commonwealth  V.  Follansbee,  155 

IMass.  274,  S.C.  29  N.  E.  R.  471,    695 
Commonwealth  v.  Goldstein,  114 

Mass.  272,  507 

Commonwealth  v.    Gordon,    159 

Mass.  8.  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  709,    1136 
Commonwealth    v.    Gorham,    99 

Mass.  420,  798 

Connnonwealth     v.     Gould,    158 

Mass.  499,  S.  C.  33  N.E.R.  656,     780 


Ixxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Commonwealth  v.  Graves,  18  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.),  34,  159 

Commonwealth  v.Green,17  Mass. 

515,  307,  1159 

Commonwealth  v.  Greene,  13  Al- 
len 251,  1140 
Commonwealth  V.Grimes,  116  Pa. 

St.  450,  S.  C.  9  Atl.  R.  665,  1106 

Commonwealth  v.  Hatton,3  Gratt. 

632,  1171 

Commonwealth    v.    Hayes,    138 

Mass.  185,  30 

Commonwealth  v.  Heller,  5  Phila. 

(Pa.)  123,  1116 

Commonwealth  v.  Hersey,  2  Al- 
len (Mass.)  173,  542 
Commonwealth  v.  Hill,  14  Mass. 

207,  741 

Commonwealth  v.  Holder,  9  Gray 

7,  308 

Commonwealth  v.   Howard,    149 

Pa.  St.  302,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  308,      1139 
Commonwealth  v.  Howe,  9  Gray 

110,  '    716 

Commonwealth    v.    Hudson,    11 

Gray  64,  337,  796 

Commonwealth    v.     Hussey,    13 

Mass.  221,  653 

Commonwealth    v.   Ingraham,   7 

Gray  (Mass.)  46,  806 

Commonwealth     v.     Jackson,     1 

Leigh.  485,  346 

Commonwealth  v.  James,  99  Mass. 

438,  179 

Commonwealth    v.    Jenkins,    10 

Gray  (Mass.)  485,  806 

Commonwealth  v.  Keck,  148  Pa. 

St.  639,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  16L  723 

Commonwealth   v.    Kirkbride,    7 

Phila.  8,  289 

Commonwealth  v.  Knapp,9  Pick. 

(Mass.)  496,  S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec. 

491,  695 

Commonwealth  v.  Lane,  113  Mass. 

458,  S.  C.  18  Am.  R.  509,  292 

Commonwealth  v.  Lawler,  12  Al- 
-     len  CNIass.)  585,  805 

Commonwealth   v.    Livermore,  4 

Gray  (Mass.)  18,  655 

Commonwealth     v.     Marrow,     3 

Brewst.  (Pa.)  402,  796,  1111 

Commonwealth    v.   McClosky,   2 

Rawle  (Pa.)  369,  337 

Commonwealth   v.  McCombs,  56 

Pa.  St.  436,  145,  217 

Commonwealth  v.  McManus,  143 

Pa.  St.  64,  S.  C.  14  L.  R.  A.  89, 

1065,  1081 
Commonwealth  v.  McMillan,  144 

Pa.  St.  610,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  1029,     660 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Commonwealth  v.  Mead,  12  Gray 

(Mass.)  167,  800 

Commonwealth     v.     Mead,     153 

Mass.284,S.C.26N.E.R.855,     1206 
Commonwealth   v.    Montgomery, 

11  Metcf.  (Mass.)  534,  33 

Commonwealth    v.    Mooney,    110 

Mass.  99,  799 

Commonwealth    v.     Moore,    143 

Mass.  136,  S.  C.  58  Am.  R.  128,      655 
Commonwealth  v.  Moore,  3  Pick. 

(Mass.)  194,  804 

Commonwealth  V.  Moorehead,  118 

Pa.  St.  344,  S.C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  599,  366 
Commonwealth    v.    Murphy,    10 

Gray  (Mass.)  1,  822 

Commonwealth    v.    Nichols,   114 

Mass.  285,  S.  C.  19  Am.  R.  346,     780 
Commonwealth   v.  Parr,  5  W.  & 

S.  (Pa.)  345,  1025 

Commonwealth     v.     Pease,     137 

Mass.  576,  1074 

Commonwealth  v.  Pepjepscut  Pro- 
prietors, 7  Mass.  399,  597,  600 
Commonwealth     v.     Piper,     120 

Mass.  185,  812 

Commonwealth    v.   Poisson,    157 

Mass.  510,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  906,    657 
Commonwealth  v.  Porter,  10  Mete. 

(Mass.)  263,  1058 

Commonwealth    v.    Powers,    109 

Mass.  353,  179 

Commonwealth  v.  Reed,  1  Gray 

472,  224, 654 

Commonwealth    v.    Richetson,  5 

Metcf.  (Mass.)  412,  179 

Commonwealth  v.  Riggs,  14  Gray 

(Mass.)  376,  538 

Commonwealth  v.  Ryan,  5  Mass. 

90,  224,  225,  654 

Commonwealth  v.  Scott,  123  Mass. 

2.39,  S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  87,  30,  820 

Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  4  Bin- 

ney  117,  _  256 

Commonwealth    v.    Snelling,    15 

Pick.  (Mass.)  321,  1077 

Commonwealth  v.   Standard   Oil 

Co.,  101  Pa.  St.  119,  338 

Commonwealth  v.  Sturtivant,  117 

Mass.  122,  S.  C.  19  Am.  R.  401,     739 
Commonwealth  v. Sullivan  (Mass.) , 

36  N.  E.  R.  583,  798,  1064 

Commonwealth  v.Taber,123  Mass. 

253,  216 

Commonwealth     v.     Tenney,    97 

Mass.  50,  308 

Commonwealth     v.      Thompson, 

(Mass.),  33  N.  E.  R.  1111,  663 

Commonwealth   v.   Thrasher,    11 

Gray  (Mass.)  55,  655 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxiii 


[EefereMccs  are  to  Pages,   Vol.  I,  pp 
Commonwealth  v.Tobin,12o  Mass. 

203,  S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  220,     1110, 1117 
Commonwealth   v.   Townsend,  5 

Allen  21(5,  1118 

Common  wealth  v.Trider,143Mass. 

180,  780 

Commonwealth  v.  Tuck,  20  Pick. 

356,  1209 

Commonwealth    v.   Twitchell,    1 

Brewst.  (Pa.)551,  809,812 

Commonwealth  v.  Upton,  6  Gray 

473,  369 

Commonwealth     v.    VanTuyl,    1 

Mete.  1,  S.  C.  71  Am.  Dec.  455,  1160 
Commonwealth  v.  Vose,  17  L.  R. 

A.  813,  742 

Commonwealth    v.    Walsh,     124 

Mass.  32,  652 

Commonwealth  v."VVebster,5Cush. 

295,  30,  542,  658, 815,  1073, 1074 

Commonwealth  v. White, 123  Mass. 

430,  308 

Commonwealth   v.  Whitney,  108 

Mass.  5,  ■    642,  645 

Commonwealth  v.  Williams,  105 

Mass.  62,  30 

Commonwealth  v.  Wilson,  1  Gray 

(Mass.)  387,  "    785 

Commonwealth    v.  Worcester,   3 

Pick.  (Mass.)  462,  545 

Commonwealth  v.  Zappe,  153  Pa. 

St.  498,  S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  16,  1075 

Commonwealth  v.  Zimmerman,  1 

Cranch  C.  C.  47,  821 

Conmionwealth,   etc.,    Insurance 

Co.  V.  Brown,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 

542,  609 

Comparet  v.   Hedges,   6  Blackf. 

416,  1218 

Compton  V.  Crone,  58  Ind.  106,  467 
Compton  V.  Jones,  65  Ind.  117,  1114 
Compton  V.  State,  89  Ind.  3.38,  1233 
Compton  V.  Wilder,  40  Ohio  St. 

130,  458 

Comstock  V.  Cavanach,   17  R.  I. 

233,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  498,  411 

Comstock  V.  Crawford,3  Wall.  396,  317 
Comstock    V.    Hadlyme     Eccles. 

Soc,  8  Conn.  254,  S.  C.  20  Am. 

Dec.  100,  679 

Comstock  V.  Tracey,  46  Fed.   R. 

162,  120 

Conant   v.    Roseborough,   30  111, 

App.  498,  1184 

Condee  v.  Barton,  62  Cal.  1,  368 

Cone  V.  Dunham,  59  Conn.  145, S. 

C.  8  L.  R.  A.  647,  372 

Cones  V.  Rvman,  9  Ind.  277,  1168 

Conev  V.  State,  90  Ga.  140,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  746,  1073 


.  1-602,   Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.  ] 
Conger  v.  Cotton,  37  Ark.  286,        510 
Conger  V.  Dean,  3  Clarke  (Iowa) 

463,  576 

Conlan  v.  Grace,  36  Minn.  276,  526 
Conley  v.  Chedic,  7  Nev.  336,  627 

Con  ley  v.  Meeker,  So  N.  Y.  618,  3 
Conley  v.  People,  83  N.  Y.  464,  8 

Conlon  V.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

23  Ore.   499,    S.    C.  32  Pac.  R. 

397,  1065 

Conkey  v.  Kingman,  24  Pick.  115,  289 
Conkey  v.  Northern  Bank,  6  Wis. 

447,  667 

Conklin  v.  City  of  Keokuk,  73  la. 

343,  655 

Conklin  v.  Hines,  16  Minn.  457,  1162 
Conklin  v.   New  York,   etc.,  Co., 

13  N.  Y.  Snpl.  782,  186 

Conklin  v.  Plant,  34  111.  App.  264,  110 
Conkling  v.  Ridgelv,  112  111.  36,  155 
Conn  V.  Coburn,  7"N.  H.  368,  S. 

C.  26  Am.  Dec.  746,  364 

Connah  v.  Sedgwick,  1  Barb.  10,  410 
Connally  v.  Spragins,  66  Ala.  2-58,  33 
Connecticut  ^Nlut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Ellis,  89  111.  616,  778 

Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Lathrop,  111  U.  S.  612,  739 

Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Union  Trust  Co.,  112  U.S.  2.50,    1079 
Connecticut  R.  R.   Co.   v.  Clapp, 

55  Mass.  559,  679 

Connell  v.  Chambers,  22  Neb.  302, 

S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  636,  411 

Connelly  v.  Leslie,   28  Mo.  App. 

551,  1239 

Connelly  v.  Dickson,  76  Ind.  440, 

495,  496 
Connelly  v.    Shamrock,  etc.,  So- 
ciety, 43  Mo.  App.  283,         152,  1213 
Connelly  y.  State,  60  Ala.  89,  S.C. 

31  Am.  R.  34,  645 

Conner  y.  Citizens'   St.    Ry.  Co., 

105  Ind.  62,  52o,  548,  1104 

Conner  y.  Gaston,  10  la.  512,  1144 
Conner  v.    Higginson,  1    Mason 

323,  411 

Conner  v.  State,  29  Fla.  455,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  891,  307 

Conner  y.  Town  of   Marion,  112 

Ind.  517,  1132,  1143 

Connihan  y.  Thompson,  111  Mass. 

270,  354 

Conolly  y.  Taylor.  2  Pet.  556,  336 

Connolly  v.  Waltham,  156   Mass. 

368,  S".  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  302,  547 

Connoly  v.  Railroad,  29  Ala.  373, 

319,  1196 
Connor  v.  Giles,  76  Me.  132, 

1041,  1055 


Ixxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  j^P 
Connor  v.  Routh,  7  How.  (Miss.) 

176,  538 

Connor  v.  Saunders,  81  Tex.  633, 

S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  236,  528 

Connor  v.   Simpson,  104   Pa.  St. 

440,  S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  161,  590 

Connors  v.  Gory,  32  Wis.  518,         337 
Connors  V.  Prudential  Ins.  Co.,  11 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  50,  441 

Conover   v.    Inliabitants  of  Mid- 

dletown,  42  N.  J.  L.  382,  539 

Conoverv.  Ruekman,  33  N.  J.  Eq. 

303,  468,  490 

Conover  v.  Wriglit,  6  N.  J.   Eq. 

613,  380 

Conrad  v.  Druids   Grand   Grove, 

63  Wis.  258,  400 

Conrad   v.  Griffey,  16  How.   (U. 

S.)  38,  801,  806 

Conrad  v.  Jolmson,  20  Ind.  421,      149 
Conrad  v.  Massasoit  Ins.   Co.,  4 

Allen  (Mass.)  20,  592 

Conrow  v.  Little,  115  N.  Y.  387, 

S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  693,  354 

Conrow  v.  Schloss,  55  Pa.  St.  28,  1242 
Conrow  v.  Stroud  (Pa.),  6  Am.  L. 

Reg.  298,  1221 

Conroy   v.  Oregon,  etc.,   Co.,  23 

Fed.  R. 71,  1211 

Consaul  v.  Lidell,  7  Mo.  250,  1240 

Consaul  v.  Sheldon,  35  Neb.  247, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  1061,  1104 

Conselyea  v.  Swift,  103  N.  Y.  604,    676 
Consolidated,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Neil, 

25  111.  App.  313,  171,  172 

Consolidated, etc.,  Co.  v.  Schaefer, 

135  111.  210,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R. 

788,  1160 

Consolidated,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yung, 

24  111.  App.  255,  1171 

Consolidated  Ice   Co.  v.  Keifer, 

134  111.  481,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A. 

696,  518,  713 

Consolidated    Ice,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Trenton,   etc.  Co.,  57  Fed.   R. 

898,  1119 

Constance  v.  Brain,  2  Jur.  N.  S. 

1145,  695 

Continental,  etc.,  v.  Rhoads,  119 

U.  S.  237,  319 

Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Yung,  113 

Ind.  1.59,  1092 

Continental  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Kess- 

ler,  84  Ind.  310,  1158 

Converse  v.  McArthur,  17  Barb. 

410,  218 

Conway  v.  Armington,  11  R.  I. 

116,  199,  471 

Conway  v.  Clinton,  1  Utah  215,       738 
Conway  v.  Day,  79  Ind.  318,  192 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Conway  v.  State,  118  Ind.  482, 

713,  721,  1215 
Conwell  V.  Buchanan,  7  Blackf. 

537  38*^ 

Conwell  v.Claypool,8  Blackf.124,  40-3 
Conwell  V.  Emrie,  4  Ind.  209,  1082 
Conwell  V.  Kuykendall,  29  Kan. 

707,  184,  1188 

Convers  v.  Kirk,  78  Ga.  480,  S.  C. 

3S.  E.  R.  442,  1112 

Conyers  v.  Mericles,  75  Ind.  443,  190 
Coogler  V.  Rogers,  25  Fla.  853,  S. 

C.  7  So.  R.  391,  371 

Cook  V.  Beatrice,  32  Neb.  80,  S.  C. 

48  N.  W.  R.  828,  483 

Cook  V.  Berrott,  21  N.  Y.  Supp. 

358,  1051 

Cook  V.  Carpenter,  34  Vt.  121,  S. 

C.  80  Am.  Dec.  670,  594 

Cook  V.  Cole,  55  la.  70,  196 

Cook  V.  Cook,  56  W^is.  195,  S.  C. 

43  Am.  R.  706,  S.  C.  14  N.  W. 

R. 33,  287 

Cook  V.  Curtis,  6  Harr.  &  J.(Md.) 

93,  806 

Cook  V.  Darling,  18  Pick.  393, 

320,  327,  427 
Cook  V.  Dickerson,  1  Duer,  679,  492 
Cook  V.  Farren,  34  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

95,  444 

Cook  V.  Gardner,  130  Mass.  313,  597 
Cook  V.  Garza,  9  Tex.  358,  632 

Cook  V.  Gerrard,  1  Saund.  170,  1099 
Cook  V.  Hall,  1  Gil.  (111.)  575,  1238 
Cook  V.  Howe,  77  Ind.  442,  1097 

Cook  V.  Hunt,  24  111.  535,  804,  805 

Cook  V.  Larson,  47  Kan.  70,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  113,  618 

Cook  V.   McNaughton,   128  Ind. 

410,  1106 

Cook  V.  Mix,  11  Conn.  432,  516 

Cook  V.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

Abb.  Ct.  App.  Dec.  432,  1042 

Cook  V.  Nethercote,  6  C.  &  P.741,  696 
Cook  V.  Orne,  37  111.  186,  413 

Cook  V.  Pendergast,  61  Cal.  72,  628 
Cook  V.  Rice,  91  Cal.  664,  S.  C.  27 

Pac.  R.  1081,  1177 

Cook  V.  Rives,  13  S.  &  M.  328,  369 
Cook  V.  Skelton,  20  111.  107,  169 

Cook  V.  Smith,  58  la.  607,  1169 

Cook  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  607, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  412,  179 

Cook  V.  State,  60  Ala.  39,  S.  C.  31 

Am.  R.  31,  1110 

Cook  V.  Tavener,  41  111.  App.  642.  556 
Cook  V.  United  States,   138  U.  S. 

157,  S.  C.  11  S.  Ct.  R.  268,  309 

Cook  V.  Wood,  24  111.  295,  190,  1244 
Cooke  V.  Bangs,  31  Fed.  R.  640.      129 


TAIJLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Cooke  V.  Gibbs,  3  Mass.  193,  454 

Cooke  V.  Gwvn,  3  Atk.  689,  496 

Cooke  V.  MiUard,  65  N.  Y.  352,  S. 

C.  22  Am.  R.  619,  108 

Cooke  V.  Odd  Fellows, etc., Union, 

49  Hun  23,  S.  C.  17  N.  Y.  S.  R. 

490,  574 

Cookingham  v.  Dusu,41  Kan. 229, 

S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  95,  553,  554,  556 
Cook's  Case,  13  How.  St.Tr.311,  653 
Cook's  Estate,  77  Cal.  220,   S.  C. 

11  Am.  St.  R.  267,  184,  191,  1189 
Cook's  Heirs    v.    Baj',    4    How. 

(Miss.)  485,  1187 

Cookson  V.    Ricbardson,    69   111. 

137,  513 

Coolbroth  v.  Purington,   29   Me. 

469,  539 

Cooley  V.  Scarlett,  38  HI.  316,  S. 

C.  87  Am.  Dec.  298,  271,  281 

Cooley  V.  State,  38  Texas,  636,  665 
Coolidge  V.  Allen,  82  Me.  23,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  89,  289 

Coolidge  V.  Brigbam,  1  Allen,  333,  217 
Coolman  v.  Fleming,  82  Ind.  117,  318 
Coon  V.  Allen,  156  Mass.  113,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  83,  585 

Coon  V.  Fry,  6  Mu-h.  506,  274 

Coon  V.  Grand  Lodge,  76  Cal.  354, 

S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  384,  368,  1203 

Coon  V.  Welborn,  83  Ind.  230,  606 
Cooney  v.  Furlong,  66  Cal.  520,  1169 
Coonrod  v.  Benson,  2  Greene(Ia.) 

179,  111 

Cooper,  In  re,  22  N.  Y.  67,  115 

Cooper,  In  re,  93  N.  Y.  507,  152,  333 
Cooper,  Matter  of,  22  N.  Y.  67,  160 
Cooper  V.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

Col.  318,  140 

Cooper  V.  Arctic  Ditcbers,  56  Ind. 

233,  638 

Cooper  V.  Board,  64  Ind.  520,  1210 
Cooper  V.  Brewster,  1  Minn.  94,  225 
Coojier  V.  Citv  of   Big  Rapids,  67 

Micb.607, "  111 

Cooper  V.  Cooper,  61  Miss.  676,  372 
Cooper  V.  Detroit,  42  Midi.  584,  366 
Cooper  V.  Metzger,  74  Ind.  544, 

466,  1175 
Cooper  V,  ^Morris,  48  N.  J.  L.  607, 

S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  427,  1077 

Cooper  V.  Omobundro,  19  Wall. 

65,  1141 

Cooper  V.  People,  13  Col.  373,  S.  C. 

6L.  R.  A.430,  1129 

Cooper  V.  Railway  Co.,  66  Mich. 

261,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  30(5,  1072 

Cooper  V.  Reynolds,  10  Wall.  .308, 

245,  272,  273,  274,  463 
Cooper  V.  Smitb,  25  la.  269,     444,  463 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60S-1244.'\ 
Cooper  V.  State,  K)  Obio  St.  328,     660 
Cooper  V.  State,  79  Ind.  206,  1114 

Cooper  V.  State,  120  Ind.  377,  1160 
Cooper  V.  Sunderland,  3  la.  114, 

242,  427 
Cooper  V.  Waldron,  50  Me.  80,  1052 
Coopwood   V.  Morgan,   34    Miss. 

368,  435 

Coosoc,  etc.,  Co.v.  South  Carolina, 

144  U.  S.  550,  483 

Copas  V.  Anglo-Am.  Provision  Co. 

(.Mich.),  14  N.  W.  R.690,  542 

Copeland   v.  New  England,  etc., 

Co.,  22  Pick.  135,  1025 

Copeland  v.  Hall,  29  Me.  93,  539 

Copeland  v.  State,  126  Ind.  51,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  8(56,  1211,  1213 

Copeland  v.  Weld,  8  Me.  411,  199 

Coplinger  y.  Steamboat,  14  Ind. 

480,  604 

Copp  V.  Hanniker,  55  N.  H.  179, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  194,  290,  643 

Coppel  V.  Smitb,  4  T.  R.  312,  197 

Copper  V.  Wells,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  10,  587 
Copper  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spencer, 

25  Cal.  11,  497 

Coppins  V.  N.  Y.  Central,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.)  26,  546 

Coquillard  v.Frencb,  19  Ind.  274,  1211 
Corbalis  v.  Newberry  Tp.,  132  Pa. 

St.  9,  S.  C.  19  Am.' St.  R.  588,      1042 
Corbett  v.  Swift,  6  Nev.  194,  1169 

Corbin  y.  Adams,  76  Va.  58,  587 

Corbin  y.  Berry,  83  N.  Car.  27,  237 
Corbin  v.  Goddard,  94  Ind.  419, 

472,  473 
Corby  v.  Burns,  36  "Slo.  194,  435 

CorbVn  v.  Bollman,  4  W.  &  S. 342,  198 
Cordell  y.  State,  22  Ind.  1,  151 

Corey  v.  Long,  43  How.  Pr.  492,  194 
Co'-field  y.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C. 

371,  '  307 

Corgan  y.  Anderson,  30  111.  95.  514 
Corlv  V.  Bean,  44  I\Io.  379,  301 

Corn  V.  Sims,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  391,  514 
Corn  Exchange  Bank  y.  Blye,  119 

N.  Y.  414,  S.C.  23N.E.R.  805,     187 
Cornelius  v.  Giberson,  25  N.  J.  L. 

1,  31,  551 

Cornell  y.  Barnes,  26  Wis.  473,  712 
Cornell  y.  Dakin,  38  N.  Y.  253,  469 
Cornell  v.  Green,    10   Serg.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  14,  400,  402 

Cornell  y.  Masten,  35  Barb.    (N. 

Y.)  157,  569 

Cornell  v.  Moulton,  3  Denio  (N. 

Y.)  12,  379 

Cornell  y.  Payne,  115  Til.  63,  472 

Cornett  v.  Williams,  20  Wall.  226, 

243,  340,  502 


Ixxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 


Corning  v.  Corning,  6  N.  Y.  97,  408 
Corning  v.   Drevfur,  20   Fed.  R. 

426,  '  467 

Corning  v.  Trov,  etc..  Factory,  6 

How.  Pr.  89,"  488 

Corning  v.  Troy  Iron  Factory,  44 

N.  Y.  577,  1041 

Corning  v.  AVoodin,  46  Mich.  44, 

1143,  1207 
Cornish  v.  Graff,  36  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

160,  1077 

Corman  v.  E.  C.  R.  Co.,  4  H.  & 

N.  781,  1041 

Cornogg  V.  Abraham,l  Yeates,18,  620 
Cornwall  v.  Davis,38  Fed.  R.878,  347 
Cornwall  v.  Sachs  23N.Y.S.  500,  480 
Corpenny  v.  City   of   Sedalia,   57 

Mo.  88,  "  230,  636 

Corporation  of  Carlisle  v.  Wilson, 

13  Yes.  276,  301 

Corrigan  v.  Jones,  14  Col.  311,  S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  913,  314 

Corsar  v.  Reed,  17  Q.  B.  540,  1049 

Cortleyen  v.  Hathaway,   64   Am. 

Dec.  482,  495 

Cortelyou  v.  Hiatt,  36  Neb.  582,  S. 

C.  54  N.  W.  R.  964,  675 

Cortelvou  v.  McCarthy,   37   Neb. 

742,  S.  C.  56  N.  W.  R.  620,  1120 

Cortes  V.  Jacobus,  136  U.  S.  330,  126 
Corwin  v.  Thomas,  83  Ind.  110,  192 
Corwithe  v.  Griffing,  21  Barb.  9,  342 
Cory  V.  Dennis,  93  Ala.  440,  S.  C. 

9  So.  R.  302,  320 

Cory  V.  Silcox,  5  Ind.  370,  635,  1111 
Coryell  v.  Linthecum   (Tex.),   11 

S."  W.  R.  1092,  304 

Cosgrove  v.  Cosby,  86  Ind.  511,  1235 
Costello  V.  Crowell,  133  Mass.  352,  738 
Coster  V.  Bank,  24  Ala.  37,  452 

Coster  V.  Murray,  5  Johns.   Ch. 

522,  361,  377 

Cota  V.  Ross,  66  Me.  161,  474 

Cothran  y.  Knox,  13  S.  Car.  496,  584 
Cothran  v.  State,  39  Miss.  541, 

1066,  1067 
Cotton  V.  Ellis,  7  Jones  (N.  Car.) 

545,  170 

Cotton  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  347,  667 

Cotton  V.  Ross,  2  Paige  396,  S.  C. 

22  Am.  Dec.  648,  274 

Cotton  States,  etc., Co. v.  Edwards, 

74  Ga.  220,  1168 

Cotton  V.  Ulmer,  45  Ala.  378,  S. 

C.  6  Am.  R.  703,  679 

Cottle,  Appellant,  5  Pick.  483,  217 
Cottrell  y.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  97  Ind. 

311,  71 

Cottrell  V.  Den,  15  N.  J.  L.  345,      248 


Cottrell  V.  Cottrell,  81  Ind.  87,  696 
Cottrell  y.  Cottrell,  126  Ind.  181, 

S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  905,  537,  552 

Cottrell  y.  Nixon,  109  Ind.  378,  1149 
Cottrell  y.  Thompson,  15  N.J.  344, 

239,  454 
Coughlin  y.  People,  18  111.  266,  919 
Coughlin  V.  People,  144  111.  140, 

S.  C.  19  L.  R.  A.  57,  660,  661 

Coughran  y.Gutcheus,  18  111.  390,  191 
Coulter  y.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  56 

N.  Y.  585,  796 

Coulter  y.  Coulter,  81  Ind.  542,  596 
Coulter  y. Routt  County ,9  Col.258,  147 
Counsell  v.  Hall,  5  New  Eng.  R. 

463,  S.  C.  145  Mass.  468,  962 

Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  U. 

S.  547,  781 

County  of  Jackson  y.  Hall,  53  111. 

440,  626 

County  of  San  Mateo  y.  Southern 
Pacific  Co.,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cases,  1,  424 

County  of  Warren  y.  Marcy,  97  U. 

S.  96,  498 

Coupland  y.  Housatonic  R.  R.  Co., 
61  Conn.  531,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A. 
534,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  870,  537 

Courser  y.  Powers,  34  Vt.  517,  216 
Coursin  y.  Penna.  Ins.  Co.,  46  Pa. 

St.  323,  557 

Courtney  v.  State,  5  Ind.  App.356, 

S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  335,  1141 

Courtright  y.  Strickler,  37  la.  382,  653 
Cousins  y.  Alworth,  10  L.  R.  A. 

504,  463,  464 

Coyell  y.  Marks,  1  Scam.  (111.)  525,  620 
Coyell  y.  Treasurer,  36  Mich.  332, 

118,  119 
Coyer  y.  Myers,  75  Md.  406,  S.  C. 

32  Am.  St.  R.  394,  1072 

Cowall  y.  Altchul,  40  Ark.  172, 

237,  1239,  1241 
Cowan  y.  Kinney,  33  Ohio  St.  422, 

713,  1216 
Cowan  y.  Wheeler,  25  Me.  267,  S. 

C.  43  Am.  Dee.  283,  269 

Cowden  y.  Reynolds,  12  Serg.  & 

R.  (Pa.)  281,  800 

Cowdrey  y.  Galyeston,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  93  U.  S.  352,  495 

Cowen  y.Eartherly  Hardware  Co., 

95  Ala.  324,  S.  C.  11  So.  R.  195,     1082 
Cowers  y.  State,  87  Ind.  144,  1238 

Cowgill  y.  Wooden,  2  Blackf .  332,  652 
Cowles  y.  Cowles,  3  Gilm.  435,  290 
Cowles  y.  Curry,  96  N.  Car.  331,  185 
Cowles  y.  Shaw,  2  la.  496,  484 

Cowley  y.  People,  83  N.  Y.464,  S. 
C.  38  Am.  Rep.  464,  30,  741,  816 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxvii 


l^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Cowper  V.   Cowper,   2   P.   Wms. 

720,  132 

Cowperthwaite  v.  Jones,  2  Dull. 

(U.  S.)  55,  1118 

Cox  V.  Baker,  118  In.l.  62,  1164 

Cox  V.  Brain,  3  Taunt.  95,  403 

Cox  V.  Capron,  10  Mo.  691,  1195 

Cox  V.  Cox,  19  Oliio  St.  502,  287 

Cox  V.  Eayres,  55  Vt.  24,  S.  C.  45 

Am.  R.  583,  795 

Cox  V.  Fay,  54  Vt.  446,  581 

Cox  V.  Gress,  51   Ark.  224,  S.  C. 

11  S.  W.  R.  416,  1243 

Cox  V.  Jagger,  2  Cow.  (N.Y.)  638, 

S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  522,     572, 584, 596 
Cox  V.  James,  45  N.  Y.  557, 

239,  261,  1130 
Cox  V.  Little   Rock,  etc.,  Co.,  55 

Ark.  454,  S.  C.  18  S.AV.R.  630,      304 
Cox  V.  North  Wisconsin  Lumber 

Co.,  82  Wis.  141,  S.  C.  51  N.  W. 

R. 1130,  450 

Cox  V.  Palmer,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.) 

431,  532 

Cox  V.  Parry,  1  Term  Rep.  464,       399 
Cox  V.  Potts,  67  Ga.  521,  608 

•Cox  V.  Prater,  67  Ga.  588,  796 

Cox  V.  Ratcliffe,  105  Ind.  374,         1098 
Cox  V.  Russell,  44  Iowa,  556,  475 

Cox  V.  State,  30  Kan.  202,        227,  236 
Cox  V.  Story,  80  Ky.  64,  443 

Cox  V.  Thomas,  9  Gratt.  323,  327 

Coxe  V.  Wolcott,  27  Pa.  St.  154,      542 
Covle  V.  Commonwealth,  104  Pa. 

St.  117,  120 

Coyner  v.  Boyd,  55  Ind.  166,  813 

Covote,  etc.,  Go.  v.  Ruble,  9  Ore. 

121,  172 

Cozine  v.  Hatch,  17  Neb.  694,  153 

Cozzens  v.  Iliggins,  33  How.  Pr. 

436,  8,  30 

Crabbv.Orth,133  Ind.  11,  S.  C.  32 

N.  E.  R.  711,  333 

Crabtree  v.  Clark,  20  Me.  337,  532 

Crabtree  v.   Hagenbaugh,  23  111. 

349,  1077 

Craddock  v.  Craddock,  3  Litt.78,    1234 
Craddock  v.  Dwight,  85  Mich.  587, 

S.  C.  48  N.  W.^R.  644,  550 

Craddock  v.  Edwards,  81    Texas 

609,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  228,  543 

Craft  V.  Thompson,  51  N.  H.  536,   602 
Crafton  v.  ^Nlitcholl,  134  Ind.  320, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  1032,  1049 

Crafts  V.  Dexter,  8  Ala.  767,  S.  C. 

42  Am.  Dec.  666,  327 

Crafts  V.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  36  N. 

H.  44,  1159 

Craein  v.  Lovell,  88  N.  Y.  258,        306 
Cragin  v.  Powell,  128  U.  S.  691,      251 


.  1-(J02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.1 
Craig  V.  Craig,  5  Rawle  91,  806 

Craig    V.    Fanning,  6   How.    Pr. 

336,  1159 

Craig  V.  Frazier,  127  Ind.  286,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  842,  1076,  1207 

Craig  V.  Grant,  6  Mich.  447,  796 

Craig  V.  Miss.  Mills,  12  Mo.  App. 

585,  1169 

Craig  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.   619, 

S.  C.  18  S.  AV.  R.  297,  807 

Craig  V.  State,  49  Ohio  St.  415,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  1120,  645 

Craig  V.  State,  5  Ohio  St.  605,  803 

Craig,  Admr.,  v.  Noblesville,  etc., 

G.  R.  Co.,  98  Ind.  109,  741 

Craighead   v.   W'ilson,    18  How. 

199,  1178 

Crain  v.  McGoon,  86  111.  431,  S. 

C.  29  Am.  Rep.  37,  401 

Cralle  v.  Cralle,  81  Va.  773,  255 

Cramer  v.    Oppenstein,    16    Col. 

504,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  716,  1212 

Crammer  v.  Crawley,  1  N.  J.  L. 

43,  652 

Crampton  v.  Valido  Marble  Co., 

60  Vt.  291,  S.   C.  1   Lawy.   R. 

Anno.  120,  .394 

Crandall,    Petition    of,   34    Wis. 

177,  341 

Crandall  v.  Bacon,  20  Wis.  671,  S. 

C.  91  Am.  Dec.  451,  154 

Crane,  Ex  parte,  5  Pet.  190,  1242 

Crane  v.  Blum,  56  Texas  325,  434 

Crane  v.  Bunnell,  10  Paige  333,       301 
Crane  v.  Camp,  12  Conn.  463, 

115,  212 
Crane  v.  Chicago, etc.,  Co.,  74  la. 

330,  S.  C.  7  Xm.  St.  R.  479,         1160 
Crane  v.  Farmer,  14  Col.  294,  S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  455,  123,  248 

Crane  v.  Freese,  1   liar.   (N.  J.) 

305,  197 

Crane  v.Larsen,  15  Ore.  345,  S.  C. 

15  Pac.  R.  32«),  526 

Crane    v.  Meginnis,  1  Gill  &  J. 

463,  S.  C.  19  Am.  Dec.  237,  289 

Crane  v.  Nelson,  37  111.  App.  597,  605 
Crane  v.  Reader,  25  Mich.  303, 

1090,  1092 
Crane  v.  Schloss,  14  N.  Y.  Supp. 

886,  1079 

Crane  v.  Thayer,  18  Vt.  162,  804 

Crane  Luml)er  Co.  v.  Otter  Creek, 

etc.,  Co.,  79  Mich.  307,  S.  C.  44 

N.  W.  R.  788,  1121 

Crank  v.  Flowers,  4  Heisk.  629,      320 
Cranor  v.  School  District,  18  Mo. 

App.  397,  1240 

Crarv  v.  Barber,  1  Col.  172,  613 

Cravens  v.  Dewev,  13  Cal.  40,        1045 


Ixxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Graver  v.  Christian,  34  Minn.  397, 

S.  C.  26N.  W.  K.  8,  1180 

Crawell  v.  Littlefield,  2  Rich.  (S. 

Car.)  17,  192 

Crawford  v.  Anderson,  129  Ind. 

117,  1147 

Crawford  v.    Carothers,   66  Tex. 

199,  S.  C.  18  S.  AV.  R.  500,  332 

Crawford  v.  Childress,  1  Ala.  482,  383 
Crawford  v.  Eagleton,  39  Fed.  R. 

523,  1177 

Crawford  v.  Orr,  84  N.  Car.  246, 

595,  596 
Crawford  v.  Powell,  101  Ind. 421,  1150 
Crawford  v.  Ross,  39  Ga.  44,  480,  487 
Craw^ford  v.  Wetherbee,  77  Wis. 

419,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  545,  1206 

Creager  v.  Blank,  32  111.  App.615,  678 
Creager  v.  Langford,  87  Ind. 177,  1217 
Creasser  v. Young,  31  Ohio  St.  57,  463 
Credit  Co.  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  Co., 

128  U.  S.  258,  368,  1203 

Credit,  etc.,  v.  Rogers,  10  Neb. 184, 

S.  C.  4  N.  W.  R.  1012,  320 

iCreely  v.  Bay  State,  etc.,  Co.,  103 
;    Mass.  514,  262,  1130 

fcreighton,  In  re,  12  Neb.  280,  337 

(Creighton  v.  Kerr,  20  Wall. (U.S.) 

8,  613,  615 

(Creighton  v.  Piper,  14  Ind.  182,  216 
Creighton  v.  Vincent,  10  Ore.  56,  382 
Crenshaw  v.  Jackson,  6  Ga.  509, 

S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  361,  716 

Cresswell  v.  McCaig,  11  Neb.  222,  437 
Crews  V.  Brewer,  19  Wall.  70,  1146 
Crim  V.  Kessing,  89  Cal.  478, 

182,  183,  184,  .320,  368,  1189 
Crippen  v.  Hope,  38  Mich.  344,  1163 
Crippen  v.  Morss,  49  N.  Y.  63,  112 
Crisman  v.  Swisher, 28  N.J.L.149,  4.56 
Criss  V.  Criss,  28  W.Va.  388,  385 

Crissfieldv.Murdock,]27N.Y.315,  345 
Crisup  V.  Grosslight,  79  Mich. 380, 

S.  C.  44N.W.  R.  621,  692 

Crittenden  v.  Com.,  82  Kv.  164,  799 
Crittenden  v.  Field,  8  Gray  621,  1128 
Croasdale   v.   Tantum,  6   Houst. 

(Del.)  218,  1124 

Crocker  v.  Baker,  3  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  182,  488 

Crocker  v.  Crane,  21  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  211,  592 

Crocker  v.  Currier,  65  Wis.  652, 

S.  C.  27  N.  W.  R.  825,  1220 

Crocker  v.  Dunkin,  6  Blackf.  535,  432 
Crocker  v.  Hoffman,  48  Ind.  207,  1115 
Crocker  v.  Pierce,  31  Me.  177,  467 
Crockett  v.  Mitchell,  88  Ga.  166, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  118,  382 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Crofoot  V.   Allen,   2  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  494,  586,  592 

Croft  V.  Ferrell,  21  Ala.  351,  1236 

Croft  V.  Rains,  10  Tex.  520,  509 

Crole  V.  Thomas,  17  Mo.  329,  1066 
Croman  v.  Stull,  119  Pa.  St.  91,  383 
Croman's  Case,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 

44,  198  ■> 

Cromer  v.  Boinest,  27  S.  Car.  436, 

S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  849,  214 

Crompton  v.  Beach,  62  Conn.25,  S. 

C.  18  L.  R.  A.  187,  354 

Cromwell   v.   Sac    Co.,   94  U.  S. 

351,  1176 

Croninger  v.  Crocker,  62  N.  Y. 

151,  401 

Cronk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. 

(S.  Dak.),  52N.  W.  R.  420,  1095 
Crook  V.  Chambers,  40  Ala.  239,  599 
Crook   V.    Findlev,  60   How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  375,      "  497 

Crooker  v.  Appleton,  25  Me.  131,  532 
Crookshank  v.  Kellogg,  8  Blackf. 

(Ind.)  256,  1051 

Cropsey  v.  Wiggenhorn,  3  Neb. 

108,  608 

Crosby  v.Hungerford,  59  la.  712,  1089 
Crosby    v.    Joroloman,    37    Ind. 

264,  1177 

Crosby  v.  Wyatt,  23  Me.  156,  364 

Cross" V.  Allen,  141  U.   S.  528,  S. 

C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  67,  384 

Cross  V.  Armstrong,  44  Ohio  St. 

613,  271 

Cross  v.Barnett,  65  Wis.  431,  542, 544 
Cross  V.  Cross,  108  N.  Y.  628,  S. 

C.  15  N.  E.  R.  333,  287,  796 

Cross  V.  Everts,  28  Tex.  523,  312 

Cross  V.  Levy,  57  Miss.  634.  346 

Cross  V.  Martin,  46  Vt.  14,  32 

Cross  V.  Mayor,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  305,  369 
Cross  V.  State,  55  Wis.  261,  1166 

Cross  V.  AVilson,  52  Ark.  312,  S.C. 

12  S.  W.  R.  576,  432,  452 

Crossman  v.  Grossman,   21  Pick. 

21,  472,  475 

Grossman  v.  Lindsley,   42   How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  107,  463 

GroBSwell  v.  Allis,  25  Conn.  301,  34 
Grotty    V.   Wyatt,   2    Brad.    (111. 

App.)  .388,  174,  175,  178 

Groudson  v.  Leonard,  4  Granch, 

434,  328 

Crouch  V.  Martin,  3  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

256,  1116 

Grouse,  Ex  parte,  4  AVhart.  (Pa.) 

9,  294 

Crow,  In  re,  60  Wis.  349,  336 

Crow  V.  Edwards,  Hob.  5b,  262 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages,  }'ol.  I,  pp 
Crow  V.  Jordan,  4!»  01iioSt.655,S. 

C.  32  N.  E.  R.  750,  808 

Crow  V.  Lemon,  etc.,  Co.,  69  Miss. 

799,  11  So.  K.   110,  465 

Crow  V.  Meyersieck,  88  Mo.  411,  328 
Crow  V.  Wood,  13  Beav.  271,  497 

Crowderv.  Moone,  o2  Ala.  221, 

195,  494,  496 
Crowe  V.  People,  92  111.  231,  1025 

Crowe  V.  Peters,  03  .M<».  429,  179 

Crowell  V.  Bank,  3  (Jliio  St.  406,  509 
Crowell  V.  Galloway,  3  Neb.  219,  431 
Crowell  V.  Johnson,  2  Neb.  146,  465 
Crowell  V.  Kirk,  3  Uev.  (N.  Car.) 

355,  795 

Crowley  v.  Page,  7  Car.  &  P.  789,  802 
Croxton  v.  Renner,  103  Ind.  223, 

S.  C.  2  N.  ?:.  R.  601,  335 

Croy  V.  State,  32  Ind.  384,  665 

Crozier  v.  Goodwin,  1  Lea  125,  218 
Crugar  v.  Douglass,  2  N.  Y.  571,  1182 
Crurkshank   v.    Comyns,    24    111. 

602,  394 

Crumley  v.Hickman,92  Ind.  388,  1233 
Crump  V.  Com.   (Ky.),  20  S.  W. 

Rep.  390,  798 

Crutchfield  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  76  N.  Car.  320,  1069 

Cruzan  v.  Smith,  41  Ind.  288, 

1132,  1151 
Cuddy,  Ex  parte,  131  U.  S.280,  S. 

C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  703,       132,  318,  528 
Cuff  V.  Newark,  etc.,  Co.,  35  N.  J. 

Law  17,  S.  C.  10  Am.  R.  205,  108 

Culley  V.  Doe,  11  A.  &  E.  1008,  371 
Culhane  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

60  N. Y.  133,  918 

Cullum  V.  Batre,  2   Ala.  415,  452 

Cullum  V.  Branch  Bank,  23  Ala. 

797,  452 

Cully  V.  Shirk,  131  Ind.  76,  S.  C. 
31'  Am.  St.  R.  414,  30  N.  E.  R. 
882,  329,  455 

Culver  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

38  Mo.  A  pp.  130,  370 

Culver  V.  Marks,  122  Ind.  554,  504 
Culver  V.  Woodruff,  etc.,  Co.,  5 

Dill.  (U.  S.)  392,  336 

Culverhouse  v.  Marx,  39  La.  Ann. 

809,  565 

Culver's  Appeal,  48  Conn.  165,  314 
Cumberland  v.  North  Yarmouth, 

4  Greenl.  (Me.)  459,  586,  592 

Cumberland,  etc.  Co.  v.  Hoffman, 

etc.,  Co.,  39  IJarb.  16,  346 

Cumming  v.  Mavor,  11  Paige, 596, 

262, 1130 
Cummings  v.   Armstrong,   34  W. 

Va.  1,  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R.  742.         1242 
Cummings  v.  McKinney,  5  111.57,  506 


1-(J02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.  ] 
Cummings  v.  National  Bank,  101 

U.  S.  153,  270 

Cummings  v.  Pruden,  11  Mass.  206, 

1046 
Cummings  v.Wvman,  10  Mass. 464,  551 
Cummins  V.  Little,  16  N.  J.  Eq.48,  453 
Cumpstun  v.McNair.  1  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  457,  535 

Cunard,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Voorhis,  104 

N.  Y.  525,  1138 

Cunningham   v.  Cambridge  Sav. 

Bank,  138  Mass.  480,  539 

Cunningham  v.  Cochran,  18  Ala. 

479,  S.  C.  52  Am.  Dec.  230,  711 

Cunningham  v.  Gallagher,  61  Wis. 

170,  675 

Cunningham  V.Jacobs, 120  Ind. 306,  346 
Cunningham  v.  Magoun,  18  Pick. 

13,  1160 

Cunningham  v.McKindley,22  Ind. 

149,  362 

Curlev  V.  Dean,  4  Conn.  259,  S.  C. 

10  Am.  Dec.  140,  597 

Curme,  Dunn  &  Co.  v.  Rauch,  100 

Ind.  247,  707 

Curran  v.  Board,  47  Minn.  313,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.  R.  237,  449 

Curran  v.  Excelsior  Coal  Co.,  63 

la.  94,  1180 

Currier  v.  Bank,  5  Coldw.  (Tenn.) 

460,  715 

Currier  v.  Bilger,  149  Pa.  St.  109, 

S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  168,  569 

Currier  V.  Lockwood.40Conn.349,  382 
Currier  v.  Lowell,  Ki  Pick.  170,  189 
Curry  v.  City  of  Spokane  Falls,  2 

Wash.  541",  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  477,  181 
Curry  v.  Curry,  114  Pa.  St.  367,  525 
Curry  v.  Lacky,  35  :\Io.  389,  573 

Curry  v.  IMiller,  42  Ind.  320,  242 

Curry  v.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  267,  30 
Curry  v.  Woodward,  53  Ala.  371,  472 
Curtis,  Ex  parte,  3  Minn. 274,  635,639 
Curtis  v.  Daniel,  23  Ark.  362,  372 

Curtis  v.  Leavitt,  1  Abb.  Pr.  274,  194 
Curtis  V.  Martz,  14  Mich.  506,  538 

Curtis  y.  Sacramento.  64  Cal.  102,  593 
Curtis  V.  Sacramento,  70  Cal.  412,  382 
Curtis  V.  State,  36  Ark.  284,  822 

Curtis  V.   Wheeler,  etc.,  Co.,  141 

N.Y.  511,  1052 

Curtis  V.  Williamson,  L.  R.  10  Q. 

B.r)7,  354 

Curtis  V.  Wilcox,  74  Mich.  69,  S. 

C.  41  N.  W.  R.  863,  224,  639 

Cushenberrv    v.    McMurrav,    27 
Kan.  328,'  '  (i23 

Cushine  v.  Cable,  54  Minn.  , 

S.  C.  o5  N.  W.  R.  736,  1142 

Cushman  v.  Flanagan,50Tex.389,   668 


xc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Cushman  v.  Somers,  60  Vt.  613  S. 

C.  15  Atl.  R.  315,  406 

Custv  V.  Donlan  (Mass.), 34 N.  i.. 

R   360 
Cutler  V.'  Hurlburt,  29  Wis.  152,    1052 
Cutler  V.  Thomas,  24  Vt.  647,  821 

Cutsinger  v.   Nebeker,  •  58    Ind. 

401,  11^^ 

Cutter  V.  Copeland,  18  Me.  127       520 
Cutter  V.  Gumberts,  3  Eng.  (Ark.) 

44Q  11  O.J 


Cutts  V.  Haskins,  9  Mass.  543, 
Curd  V.  Wallace,  7  Dana  (Ky.) 

190,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  85, 
Cutter  V.  Carter,  29  Vt.  72, 
Cuyler  v.  Ferrill,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.) 

169, 
Cuvler  V.  Vanderwerk,  1  Johns. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  247,  1048 

Cyphert  V.   McClune,  22  Pa.  bt. 

195, 
Cypress,  etc.,  Co.   v.   Hooper,  2 

Met.  (Kv.)  350, 
Cvr  V.  Dufour,  62  Me.  20, 
Cyra  v.  Stewart,  79  Wis.  72,  S.  C. 

48  N.  W.  R.  50, 


D 


595 
601 

336 


605 

1.36 
126 

626 


Dabnev  V.  Hudson,   68  Miss.  292, 

•^   c'8  So   R    545  217 

Dabney  v.  Sheiton,  82  \^.  349  368 
Dabv  V.  Ericsson,  45  N.  Y.  /86,  o8b 
Dacev  V.  People,  116111.  555,  S.  C. 

6  \   E.  R.  165,  622 

Dacosta  V.  Guieu,  7  S.  &  R.  462,  1134 
Daft  V.  Drew,  40  HI.  App.  266,  1113 
Daggett  V.  Tallman,  8  Conn.  168,  797 
Dagiitt  V.  Menscb,  141  HI.  395,  31 

N   E.  R.  153,  528 

Daggy  V.  Cronnelly,  20  Ind.  474,  592 
Dahl  V.  Milwaukee  City  R.  R.  Co., 

62  Wis.  652,  548 

Dahlman  v.  Hammel,  45  Wis.466,  676 
Dahlstrom  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.  (Mo.),18S.  W.  R.  919,  537 

Dahms  v.  Alston,  72  la.  411,  S.  C. 

34  N.  W.  R.  182,  446 

Dailey  v.  Green,  15  Pa.  St.  118,  509 
Daily  v.  Kennedy,  64  Mich.  208,  613 
Dakota  County  v.  Glidden,  113  U. 

S    222  lloH 

Dale  V.  Copple,  53  Mo.  321  254 

Dale  V.  Mottram,  2  Barn.  291,  598 
Dale  V.  Radcliffe,  25  Barb.(N.Y.) 

33.3 
Daie  Tile  Co.  v.  Hyatt,  125  U.  S. 

46  ^'^^ 

DaLeev.Blackburn,llKan.l90,   801 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.-\ 
Daley  v.  Cunningham,  3  La.  Ann. 

35,  ^  198 

Dalrvmple  v.  Williams,  63  N.  Y. 

361,  1124 

Dalton  V.  Libbv,  9  Nev.  192,  140 

Daly  V.  Bernstein   (N.  Mex.),  28 

Pac.  R.  7ti4,  505 

Daly  V.  Maguire,  6  Blatch.  (C.  C.) 

1 37  ^5 

Dalv  v.  State.  28  Ind.  285,  806 

Damouth  v.  Klock,  28  Mich.  163,    1179 
Damp  V.  Dane,  29  Wis.  419, 

113,  248,  332,  1214 
Damron  v.  Ferguson,  32  W.  Va. 

33,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  39,  1181 

Damron  v.  Penn.  Co.,  99  Ind.478,  360 
Dana  v.  Adams,  13  111.  691,  614 

Dana  V.  Tucker,  4  .Johns.  487,  1119 
Dana    v.   Underwood,    19    Pick. 

(Mass.)  99,  512 

Dane  v.  Treat,  35  Me.  198,  ^05 

Danforth  v.  Carter,  4  la.  2.30,  469, 544 
Danehauerv.  Devine,  51  Tex.480,  4/8 
Daniel  v.  Dav,  51  Ala.  431,  380 

Daniel  v.  Metropolitan  Ry.  Co.,  6 

L.  Rep.  C.  P.  644,  872 

Daniell  v.  East  Boston  Ferry  Co., 
1.57  Mass.  46,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R. 
711,  ^^  3/7 

Daniels  v.   City   of    Lowell,   139 

Mass.  56,  S.C.  29N.E.R.222,     665 
Daniels  v.  City  of  New  London,  58 

Conn.  156,  S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  563,     582 
Daniels  v.  McGinnis,  97  Ind.  549, 

1106,  1115 
Daniels  v.Tearney,  102  U.S.415,  343 
Danlev  v.  Scanlon,  116  Ind.  8,  620 
Dennefelser  v.AVeigel,  27  Mo.45,  509 
Dano  V.  Sessions,  65  Vt.  79,  S.  C. 

26  Atl.  R.  585,  1205 

Danube  &  Black  Sea  Ry.   Co.  v. 

Xenos,  13  Com.  B.  (N.S.)  825,       362 
Danville  Bank  V. Waddill, 27  Gratt. 

(Va.)  448,  ^        1116 

Darbv  v.  Ouseley,  36  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq-518,  ^^         ^^^    692 

D'Arcv  V.  Ketchum,  11  How.  (U. 

S.)  165,  119^ 

Darland  v.  Rosencrans,  56  la. 122,  179 
Darlev  v.  Thomas,  41  Ga.  524,  619 
Darling  v.  Dodge,  .36  Me.  370,  637 
Darling  v.  March,  22  Me.  184,  521 
Darling  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  17  R. 

I.  708,  S.  C.  16  L.  R.  A.  643,  1123 
Darling  v.  Pierce,  15  Hun  543,  ^  224 
Darling  v.  Westmoreland,  52  N. 

H   401,  S.  C.  13  Am.  R.  55,  101 

Darnall  v.   Adams,  13  B.   Hon. 

(Kv  )  273  ^^^ 

Darnell  V.  State,  15 Tex. App.  70,     1165 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XCl 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Darrance  v.  Preston,  18  la.  39G,     1163 
Darrow  v.  I'lenv,  !»1   Mich,  tio,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  K.  81;:!,  505 

D'Anisnient  v.  Jones,  4  Lea  251, 

S.  C.  40  Am.  K.  12,  325 

Darwin  v.  Keigher,  45  ]\Iinn.  G4,  519 
Dash  V.  Van  Kieeck,  7Jolins.477,  117 
Dasher  v.  Dasher,  47  Ga.  320,  455 

Dassler  v.  Wisley,  32  Mo.  498,  1068 
Daiiglidrill   v.  Sweeney,  41    Ala. 

310,  403 

Daiigliertv  v.  AVheeler,  125  lud. 

42] ,       ■  360 

Davenport  v.   Fulkerson,  70  Mo. 

417,  584 

Davenport  v.  Lacon,17  Conn. 278,  468 
Davenport  v.  Ladd,  38  Minn.  545, 

S.  C.  38  N.  W.  R.  622,  390 

Davenport  v.  Ogg,  15  Kan.  363,  697 
Davenport    v.   Tilton,    10    Mete. 

(Mass.)  320,  470 

Davenport,  etc.,  Asso.  v.  Schmidt, 

15  la.  213,  245,  342 

Davevac  v.  Seiler  (Ky.),20  S.  W. 

R.  375,  1141 

David  V.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  9  la.  45, 

171,  172 
Davidson  v.  Floy<l,  15  Fla.  667,  484 
Davidson  v.  Morrison,  86  Ky.  397, 

S.  C.  5  S.   W.  R.  871,  S.  C.  9 

Am.  St.  R.  295,  110,  1130,  1149 

Davidson  v.    Murphv,    13   Conn. 

213,  '       180,  183,  1203 

Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U. 

S.  97,  424 

Davidson  v.  Peck,  4  Mo.  438,  1231 
Davidson    v.   Wheeler,   1    Morr. 

(la.)  238,  627 

Davie  v.  Davie,  52  Ark.  224,  S.  C. 

12  S.  W.  R.  538,  S.  C.  20  Am. 

St.  R.  170,  254,  1179 

Davie  v.  Terrill,  63  Tex.  105,  731 

Davies  v.  Humphreys,  6  M.  &  W. 

153,  364 

Davies  v.  McKnight,  146  Pa.  St. 

610,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  320,  534 

Davies  v.  Pratt,  17  Com.  B.  183,  594 
Davies  v.  Ridge,  3  P:sp.  101,  582 

Davies  v.  Smith,  4  Esp.  36,  382 

Daviess    v.    Arbuckle,    1     Dana 

(Ky.)  525,  678 

Davis,  Ex  parte,  95  Ala.  9,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  308,  329 

Davis  v.  Allen,  11  Pick.   (Mass.) 

466,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  386,  653 

Davis  V.  Badders.  95  Ala.  348,  S. 

C.  10  So.  R. 422,  536 

Davis  V.  Barrett,  7  Beav.  171,  1210 
Davis  V.  Berger,  54  Mich.  652, 

576,  583 


,  7-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.'] 
Davis  V.  Binford,  58  Ind.  457, 

641,  1231 
Davis  V.  Burt,  7  Iowa  56,  438 

Davis  V.  Byrd,  94  Ind.  525, 

179,  696,  697 
Davis    V.    Calvert,    5   Gill   &    J. 

(Md.)  269,  S.  C.  25  Am.   Dec. 

282,  706 

Davis  V.  Capper,  10  B.  &  C.  28,  553 
Davis  V.  Charles   River,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  11  Cush.  506,  715 

Davis  V.  Coburn,  128  Mass.  377,  372 
Davis  V.  Commonweahh,  13  Bush 

318,  287 

Davis  V.  Creamerv  Co.,  128  Ind. 

222,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  494,  493 

Davis  V.  Davis,  119  Ind.  511,  1211 

Davis  V.  Dohertv,  69  Ind.  11,  392 

Davis  V.  Donner,  82  Cal.  35,  S.  C. 

22  Pac.  R.  879,  1184 

Davis  V.  Drew,  6  N.  H.  399,  199 

Davis  V.  Duke  of  Marlborough,  2 

Swanst.  113,  194,  498 

Davis  V.  Dyer,  62  N.  H.  231,  1129 

Davis's  Instate,  In  re,  11  Mont.  1, 

S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  342,  254 

Davis  V.  Fall  River,  155  Mass.  96, 

S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  202,  1041 

Davis  V.  Field,  56  Vt.  426,  738 

Davis  V.  Field,  43  Vt.  221,  1192 

Davis  V.  Finnev,  37  Kan.   165,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  "460,  152 

Davis  V.  Fish,  1  G.  Greene  (la.), 

406;    S.    C.   48   Am.    Dec.   387, 

148,  153,  155,  1077,  1111 
Davis  V.  Foreman  (Tex.), 20  S.  W. 

R.  52,  623 

Davis  V.  Forshee,  34  Ala.  107,  590 

Davis  V.  Franke,  33  Gratt.  (Va.), 

413,  802 

Davis  V.  Gaines,  48  Ark.  370,  121,  171 
Davis  V.  Getchell,  32  Neb.  792,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  776,  1064 

Davis  V.  Gorton,  16  N.  Y.  255,  363 
Davis  V.  Gray,  16  Wall.  203,  410,  493 
Davis  V.  Gurnev,  38  111.  App.  520,  570 
Davis  v.IIavard",15  Serg.  «.t  R.  (Pa.) 

165,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  537,     584,  598 
Davis  V.  Headlv,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  115, 

271,281,283,284 
Davis  V.  Henrv,  121  Mass.  150,  599 
Davis  V.  Hoi>kins,  18  Col.  153,  S. 

C.  32  Pac.  Rep.  70,  721 

Davis  V.  Hudson,  29  Minn.  27, 

116,  316 
Davis  V.  Hunter,  7  .Via.  135,  657 

Davis   V.    Kan.    Citv  Belt   R.    R. 

Co.,  46  i\Io.  App.  180,  546,  1081 

Davis  V.  Keves,  112  Mass.  436,  719 
Davis  v.  Kline,  96  Mo.  401,  1228 


XCll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Davis  V.  Knapp,  8  Mo.  657,  473 

Davis  V.   Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R'y 

Co.,  114  Ind.  364,  528 

Davis  V.  Lamb  (CaL),  35  Pac.  R. 

306,  1168 

Davis  V.  Leo,  6  Yes.  784,  486 

Davis  V.  Luark,  34  Ind.  403,  619 

Davis  V.  Mason,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 

156,  669,  1158 

Davis  V.  Maxwell,  27  Ga.  368,  585 
Davis  V.  Mayor,  1  Duer  451,  163 

Davis  V.   Mc Arthur,  78  N.    Car. 

357,  372 

Davis  V.  Megros  (N.  J.),  26  Atl. 

R.  1009,  607 

Davis  V.  Melvin,  1  Ind.  136,  723 

Davis  V.  Menasha,  20  Wis.  194,  1240 
Davis  V.  Meredith,  48  Mo.  263,  474 
Davis  V.  Messenger,  17  Ohio  St. 

231,  138 

Davis  V.  Michelbacher  (Wis.),  31 

N.  W.  R.  160,  497 

Davis   V.  Montgomerv,  123   Ind. 

587,  "  1156 

Davis  v.  Moore,  13  Me.  424,  559 

Davis  V.  Packard,  7  Pet.  275,  119 

Davis  V.  Parker,  14  Allen  94,  280 

Davis  V.  Patrick,  122  U.  S.  138,  1237 
Davis  V.  Reveler,  65  Mo.  189,  1069 
Davis  V.  Pool,  67  Ind.  425,  1157 

Davis  V.  Rainsford,  17  Mass.  207,  35 
Davis  V.  Reaves,  75  Tenn.  585,  449 
Davis  v.  Reed,  14  Md.  152,  488 

Davis  V.  Robinson,  70  Tex.  394,  450 
Davis  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

53  Ark.  117,  S.  C.  7  L.R.  A .  283,     1065 
Davis  V.  Shaver,  1  Phil.  (N.  Car.) 

18,  S.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  92,  184 

Davis  V.  Shuah  (Ind.),  36  N.  E.  R. 

122,  1113 

Davis  V.  State,  44  Tex.  523,  220 

Davis  V.  State,  35  Ind.  496,  516,  778 
Davis  V.  State,  15  Tex.  App.  594,  30 
Davis  V.  State,  15  Ohio  72,  177 

Davis  V.  State  (Tex.),  20  S.  W.  R. 

923,  799 

Davis  V.  State,  119  Ind.  555,  137 

Davis  V.  Steiner,  14  Pa.  St.  275,  S. 

C.  53  Am.  Dec.  547,  1027,  1030 

Davis  V.  Stout,  126  Ind.  12,  566 

Davis  V.  Wilson,  65  111.  525,  640 

Davis  V.  You,  43  Ala.  691,  1180 

Davis  V.  Young,  36  La.  Ann.  374,  370 
Davis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riverside,  etc., 

Co.,  84  Wis.  262,  S.  C.  54  N.  W. 

R.  506,  618 

Davy  V.  Gronow,  14  L.  J.  (N.  S.) 

Ch.  134,  498 

Dawson  v.  Baum,  3  Wash.  Ter. 

464,  S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  46,  1165 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Dawson  v.  Dawson,  29  Mo.  App. 

521,  218,  237 

Dawson  v.  Fitzgerald,  L.  R.,  1  Ex. 

Div.  257,  S.  C.  3  Cent.  L.  Jour. 

477,  589 

Dawson  v.  Hemphill,  50  Ind.422,  624 
Dawson  v.  Holcombe,  1  Ohio  275,  197 
Dawson  v.  Shirk,  102  Ind.  184,  1130 
Dawson  v.  State,  62  Miss.  241,  1073 
Dawson  v.  State  Bank,  3  Ark. 505,  456: 
Dawson  v.  Vaughan,  42  Ind.  395, 

637,  1211 
Dawson  v. Wells,  3  Ind.  398,  218 

Day  v.  Argus,  etc.,  Co.,  47  N.  J. 

Eq.  594,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  1056, 

185,  1202 
Day  v.  Bonnin,  3  Bing.  (N.  Cases) 

219  597 

Day  V.  Day,  100  Ind.  460,  1138,  1139 
Day  V.  Goodman  (Tex.),  17  S.  W. 

R.  475,  1167 

Day  V.  Hammond,  57  N.Y.  479,  S. 

C.  15  Am.  R.  522,  692 

Day  V.  Henrv,  104  Ind.  324,  S.  C. 

4N.  E.  R.44,  712,113a 

Day  v.  Mayo,  154  Mass.  472,  S.  C. 

28  N.  E.  R.  898,  382 

Dav  V.  Pickett,  4  Munf.  104,  1156 

Day  V.  Savadge,  Hob.  87,  220 

Day  v.  Sharp,  4  Whart.  339,  S.  C. 

34  Am.  Dec.  509,  715 

Day  v.  State,  63  Ga.  667,  809 

Day  V.  Stetson,  8  Me.  365,  122 

Dayton  v.  Mintzer,  22  Minn.  393,  128 
Deaderick  v.  Oulds,  86  Tenn.  14, 

S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  812,  1149 

Deadrick  v.  Watkins,  8  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  520,  224 

Dean  v.  Applegarth,  65  Cal.  391,  412 
Dean  v.  Corbett,  51  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.  103,  1043 

Dean  v.  Gridley,  10  Wend.  254,  1225 
Dean  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co., 

119  N.  Y.  540,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R. 

1054,  388 

Dean  v.  Nelson,  10  Wall.  158, 

280,  336 
Dean  v.  Ridgewav,  82  la.  757,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  923,  412 

Dean  v.  Smith,  23  Wis.  483,  S.  C. 

99  Am.  Dec.  198,  477 

Dean  v.  Thatcher,   3  Vroom  (N. 

J.)  470,  321 

Dean  v.  Toppin,  130  Mass.  517,  650 
Dean  v.  Wilcoxon,  25  Fla.  980,  S. 

C.  7  So.  R.  163,  528 

Dearing  v.  Bank,  5  Ga.  497,  S.  C. 

48  Am.  Dec.  .300,     280,  285,  303,  444 
Dearborn   v.  Newhall,  63  N.  H. 

301,  1121 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


xeiu 


[References  are  to  Payes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Bearing  V.  Rucker,  IBGratt.  42ti,    1138 
De  Ariuond   v.    Adams,    25   Ind. 

45o,  435 

Dearinond  v.  Dearniond,  10  Ind. 

191,  500,  050 

Death  v.  Bank   of   Pittsburgh,    1 

la.  382,  489 

Deaton,  In  re,  105  N.  Car.  59,   S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  244,  1129 

Deattv  V.  Shirlev,  83  Ind.  218,  1121 
DebeU  v.  Foxworthv,  9  B.    Mon. 

(Kv.)  228,  '  500 

Debs'v.  Dalton  (Ind.),  34   N.  E. 

R.  236,  474 

DeCanip  v.  Eveland,  19  Barb,  81,  122 
DeCastro  v.  Richardson,  25  Cal. 

49,  185 

Decatur  v.  Paulding,    14    Peters 

497,  117,  251,  1241 

Decker  v.  Armstrong,  87  Mo.  316,  455 
Decker  v.  Brvant,  7  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

182,  ■  720 

Decuir  v.  Lejeune,  15   La.   Ann. 

569,  005 

Deere  v.  Bagely,  80  la.  197,  S.  C. 

45  N.  W.  R.  557,  626 

Deerfield  v.  Arms,  20  Pick.  480,  S. 

C.  32  Am.  Dec.  228,  576 

Deerfield  v.  Conn.  River  R.  R.  Co., 

144  Mass.  325,  S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R. 

105,  551 

Deeringv.  Johnson, 33  Minn.  97,  1162 
Deering  v.  Saco,  68  Me.  322,  601 

De  Farges  v.  Ryland,  24  Am.  St. 

Rep.  659,  519 

Deford  v.  Deford,  116  Ind.  523,  600 
De  France  v.  De  France,  34  Pa.  St. 

385,  524 

De  Freest  v.Warner,  98  N.Y.  217,  383 
De  Graffenried  v.  Brunswick,  etc., 

Co.,  57  Ga.  22,  410,  493 

De  Graw  v.  Prior,  60  Mo.  56,  551 

De  Haven  v.   De  Haven,  77  Ind. 

236,  728 

Deig  V.  Moorehead,  110  Ind.  451,  1129 
Deihl  V.  Evans,  1  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

367,  1113 

De  La  Croix  v.Villers,  11  La.  Ann. 

39,  485 

Delafield  v.  Bradv,  108  N.Y.  524,  341 
Dehifield  v.  Parrish.  25  N.Y.  9,  679 
De  La  Hunt   v.  Holderbaugh,  58 

Ind.  285,  443 

Deland  v.  Hiett.  27  Cal.  611,  S.  C. 

87  Am.  Dec.  102,  566 

De  Lane  v.  Moore,  14  How.  (U.  S.) 

253,  504 

Delanev  v.  Brett,  51  N.  Y.  78,  111 

Delaney  v.  Gault,  30  Pa.  St.  63, 

320,  327,  427 


J-fJOi\  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Delaney  v.  Mulligan,  148  Pa.  St. 

157,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  1050,  707 

Dehip  v.  Hunter,  1  Sneed  1(X),  1178 
Delaplain  v.  Armstrong,  21  W.Va. 

211,  406 

Delano  v.  Goodwin,  48  N.  H.  203,  544 
Delevene  v.  Parker,  9  Dowl.  Pr.  C. 

245,  98.5 

Delaware,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Converse,  139  U.  S.  409,  S.  C.  11 
Sup.  Ct.  R.  569,  S.  C.  4  Lewis' 
Am.  R.  R.  &   Corp.    Cas.   434, 

547,  799 
Delaware  Sc  H.  Canal  Co.  v.  Gold- 
stein, 125  Pa.  St.  246,  S.  C.  17 
Atl.  R.  442,  558 

Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  250, 

407,  589 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Shel- 

ton  (N.  J.),  26  Atl.  R.  9.37,  1056 

De  Leon  v.Barrett,22  S.Car.  412,  153 
Delisle  v.  McGilivary,24  Mo.  App. 

680,  514 

Delk  V. State,  3  Head.  (Tenn.)  79,  918 
Dell  V.  Oppenheimer,  9  Neb.  454,  915 
De  Longv.  Giles,  11  111.  App.  33,  1069 
DeLong  v.  Stanton,  9  Johns.  38,  573 
DeLorme  v.  Pease,  19  Ga.  220,  174 
De  Louis  v.  Meek,  2  G.  Greene  55, 

S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  491,  206 

Delphi  V.  Lowerv,  74  Ind.  520, 

712, 1206 
Delvee  v.  Boardman,  20  la.  446,  1157 
Delphi  V.  Startzman,  104  Ind.  443,  484 
Demarest  v.  Wvnkoop,  3  Johns. 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  129,  380,381 

De  Meli  v.  De  Meli,  120  N.Y.  485, 
S.  C.  17  Am.  St.   R.  652, 

287,312,428 
Deming  v.  Foster,  42  N.  H.  165, 

172,  539 
Demens  v.  Povntz,  25  Fla.  654,  S. 

C.  6  So.  R.  261,  1191 

Demoss  v.  Brewster,  12  Miss.  661,  442 
De  Moss  V.  Newton,  31  Ind.  219,  380 
Dempsev  v.  Harrison,  4  Mo.  267,  1197 
Dempsey  v.  Mayor,  10  Daly  417,  1087 
Dempsey   v.    State,  3  Tex.   App. 

429,  828 

De  Manneville  v.  De  Manneville, 

10  Yes.  Jr.  52,  290 

Den  v.  Graham,  1  Dev.  &  Batt.  76, 

S.  C.  27  Am.  Dec.  226,  1232 

Den  V.  Tomlin.  18  N.  J.  L.  14,  S. 

C.  35  Am.  Dec.  525,  189 

Dench  v.  Walker.  14  Mass.  500,  365 
Denegre  v.  Denegre,  33  La.  Ann. 

r.89,  ^  301 

Denegre  v.  Milne, 10  La.  Ann.  324,   462 


XCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferetices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Denman  v.  Bayless,  22  111.  300,      596 
Denman  v.   McGuire,   101  N.  Y. 

161,  427 

Demi  V.  Tatem,  1  N.  J.  L.  164,  224 
Dennett  v.  Dow,  17  Me.  19,  795 

Dennett  v.  Petitioner,  32  Me.  508,  170 
Dennick  v.  Railroad  Co.,  103  U. 

S.  11,  374 

Denning  v.  Norris,  2  Lev.  243,  232 
Dennis  V.  Ford,  7  N.  J.  L.  200,  627 
Dennis    v.    Maxtield,     10  Allen 

(Mass.)  138,  1081 

Dennison  v.  Grove,  52  N.  J.  L. 

144,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  Rep.  186,  540 

Dennison  v.  Tavlor,  142  111.  45,  S. 

C.  31  N.  E.  R".  148,  320 

Denny  v.  Ashley,  12  Col.  165,  444 

Dent  V.  Brvce,  16  S.  Car.  1,  1160 

Dent  V.  Dunn,  3  Camp.  296,  402 

Dent  y.Powell,  80  la.  456,  S.  C.  45 

N.  W.  R.  772,  555 

Denton  v.  Denton,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.Y.)364,  476 

Denton  v.  Noyes,  6  Johns.  296,  S. 

C.  5  Am.  Dec.  237,  606 

Denver  v.  Brown,  11  R.  I.  537,  472 
Denver  v.  Dean,  10  Col.  375,  S.  C. 

16  Pac.  R.  30,  531 

Denver  v.  Jacobson,  17  Col.  497, 

S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  246,  180 

Denver  v.  Lobenstein,  3  Col.  216,  269 
Denver,  etc.,  v.  Cowgill,  44  Kan. 

325,  S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  475,  1232 

Denver,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hender- 
son, 10  Col.  1,  1043 
Denver,  etc..  Water  Co.  v.  Mid- 

daugh,  12  Col.  434,  S.  C.  13  Am. 

St.  R.  234,  344 

Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moynahan,  8 

Col.  56,  824 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Olsen,  4 

Col.  239,  545 

Denver,  T.  &  G.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rob- 
bins,  2  Col.  Ct.  of  App.  313,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  261,  635 

Depauw  v.  Bank,  126  Ind.  553,  393 
De  Pauw  v.  Kaiser,  77  Ga.  176,  S. 

C.  3  S.  E.  R.  25,  1163 

DePew  V.  Robinson,  95  Ind.  109,  178 
Depew  v.Wheelan,  6  Blackf.  485,  1194 
Deppe  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

38  la.  592,  1120 

Deputy  V.  Betts,  4  Harr.  (Del.) 

352  592 

DePu'v  V.  Quinn,  61  Hun  237,  S. 

C.  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  708,  657 

Dequindre  v.  Williams,  31   Ind. 

444,  242,  314,  327 

Derham  v.  Holeman,  26  Ga.  182, 

S.  C.  71  Am.  Dec.  198,  381 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
DeRidder  v.  McKnight,  13  Johns. 

(N.Y.)294,  560 

Derosia  v. Winona,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

18  Minn.  133,  553 

Des  Artes  v.  Leggett,  16  N.Y.582,     402 
Deshler  v.  Foster,  1  Morr.  (la.) 

403,  613 

Des  Moines  v.Layman,21  Ia.l53,    1129 
Des   Moines    Navigation    Co.    v. 

Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  123  U.  S.  552,       315 
DeSobrv  v.  DeLaistre,  2  Har.  & 

J.  (Md.)  191,  801 

DeSouchett  v.  Dutcher,  113  Ind. 

249,  1064, 1079 

De  Tar  v.  Boone  Co.,  34  la.  488,     432 
DeTreville  v.  Ellis,  1  Bailey  Eq. 

(S.  Car.)  35,  S.  C.  21  Am.  Dec. 

518,  201 

Detro  V.  State,  4  Ind.  200,  177 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  Ry.  Co.,  55 

Fed.  R.  569,  1046 

Detroit  v. Jackson,  1  Doug. (Mich.) 

106,  587 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R.   Co.  v.  Van 

Steinburg,  17  Mich.  99,        546,  1056 
Detroit  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Burch, 

76  Mich.  608,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R. 

453,  454 

Detroit  Free  Press  Co.  v.  Bagg,  78 

Mich.  650,  S.  C.  44  N.W.R.  149,     456 
Deutmann  v.  Kilpatrick,  46  Mo. 

App.  624,  538,  566 

Devacht  v.  Newsam,  3  Ohio  57,       371 
DeVay   v.   Dunlap,   7   Ind.  App. 

690,  S.  C.  35  N.  E.  R.  195,  1080 

Devecmon  v.  Shaw,  70  Md.  219, 

S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  645,  111 

Devenbagh  v.  Devenbagh,  5  Paige 

Ch.  554,  808 

Devenbaugh  v.  Nifer,  3  Ind.  App. 

379,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  923,  206 

Devendorf  v.  Dickinson,  21  How. 

Pr.  (N.Y.)  275,  193,  493 

De  Verser  v.Blackstone,  6  Blatchf. 

235,  196 

Devlin  V.  Commonwealth,  101  Pa. 

St.  273,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  710,         325 
Devlin  v.  Quigg,  44  Minn.  534,  S. 

C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  592,  1149 

Devoe  v.  Ithaca,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Paige 

521,  195 

DeWald  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co., 

44   Kan.  586.    S.  C.  24  Pac.  R. 

1101,  1025,  1030 

DeWalt  V.  Hartzell,  7  Col.  601, 

635,  640 
De  Wein  v.  Osborn,  12  Col.  407,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  189,  628 

Dewey  v.  Greene,  4  Denio  (N.Y.) 

93,  612 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


XCV 


iReferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Dewey  v.  Huinphrev,5  Pick.  187,   1172 
Dewey  v.  Lewis,  ifXeb.  80(;,         1197 
Dewey  v.  Wasliburn,  12  Vt.  580,     4U2 
Dewing  v.  Perdicaries,  96   U.  S. 

193,  115 

Dewinp;  v.  Sears,  11  Wall.  379,  1192 
Dewing  v.  AVentwortli,  11  Cush. 

499,  198 

De  Witt  V.  Burnett,  3  Barb.  89,  303 
De  AVitt  V.  Prescott,  51  Mich.  298,  506 
De  AVolf  V.  Mmi.hv,  11  R.  I.  630,  467 
De  Worms   v.    Mellier,  L.    R.  16 

Equ.  554,  406 

De.xter  v.  Arnold,  5  Mason  303,  1186 
Dexter  v.  Ohlander,  95  Ala.  467, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  527,  480 

Dexter  v.  Young,  40  N.  H.  130,  586 
Dhrew  v.  Altoona,  121  Pa.  St.  401, 

S.  C.  15  Atl.  R.  636,  574 

Dial  V.  Holter,  (i  Ohio  St.  228,  189 

Dial  V.  Vallev  Mut.  Life  Assn.,  29 

S.  Car.  560",  618 

Diamond  v.  Lawrence  Co.,  37  Pa. 

St.  353,  S.  C.  78  Am.  Dec.  429,  498 
Dick  V.  MuUins,   128    Ind.    365, 

1227, 1236 
Dick  V.  Wilson,  10  Ore.  490,  316 

Dickenson  v.  Codwise,  11   Paige 

189,  1187 

Dickenson  V.Dickey, 76  N.Y.602,  1139 
Dickerson  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  43  Kan.  702,  S.C.  23  Pac. 

R.  936,  440,  612 

Dickerson  v.  Dickerson,  50  Mich. 

37,  1091 

Dickerson    v.   Hays,    4    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  44,  592,  593 

Dickerson    v.    Tvner,   4    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  253,        '  598 

Dickey   v.  Schreider,   3   S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  413,  1027 

Dickey  v.  Vann,  81  Ala.  425,  S.  C. 

8  So.  R.  195,  263 

Dickinson,    Ex  parte,  29  S.  Car. 

453,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  749,  302 
Dickinson  V.  Hoomes,8Gratt.353,  281 
Dickison  v.  Palmer,  2  Rich.  V,q. 

(S.  Car.)  407,  197 

Dickison  v.  Railroad  Co. ,7  W.  Va. 

390,  601 

Dick's  Appeal,  106  Pa.  St.  589,  337 

Dicks  V.  Hatch,  10  la.  380, 

248,  255,  454 
Dickson,  Ex  parte,  64  Ala.  188,  178 
Dickson  v.  Hoff,  3  How.  (Miss.) 

165,  192 

Dickson  v.  Rose,  87  Ind.  103, 

1151,  1217,  1219 
Didier  v.  Penna.  Co.,  146  Pa.  St. 

582,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  801,  1071 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Diebold  v.  Penna.,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N. 

J.  L.  478,  368 

Diedrichs  v.  Northwestern,  etc., 

Co.,  33  Wis.  219,  488 

Diedrick  v.  Richley,  2  Hill  271,  576 
Diefenback  v.  Stark,  56  Wis.  462,  539 
Dietfenbach  v.  Roch,  112   N.   Y. 

621,  368 

Dieffenderfer  v.  Scott,  5  Ind.  App. 

243,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  Rep.  87,  795 

Diehl  V.  Ihrie,  3  Whart.  (Pa.)  143, 

1134,  1136 
Dignan  v.Gilbert,43  111.  App. 536,  1228 
Dikeman  v.  Struck,  76  Wis.  332, 

S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  118,  609,  612 

Dilks  V.  Hammond,  86  Ind.  563, 

584,  585 
Dillard  v.  Central  Va.  Iron  Co., 

82  Va.  734,  S.  C.  1  S.  E.  R.  124,     441 
Dillard  v.  Krise,  86  Va.  410,  S.  C. 

10  S.  E.  R.  430,  450 

Dillard  v.  Noel,  2  Ark.  449,  337 

Dille  V.  Lovell,  37  Ohio  St.  415,  675 
Dille  V.  State,  34  Ohio  St.  617,  S. 

C.  32  Am.  R.  395,  178,  819 

Dillebar  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  87  N. 

Y.  79,  778 

Dillin  V.  People,  8  Mich.  357,  721 

Dillingham  v.  Russell,  73  Tex.  47, 

S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  634,  720 

Dillingham  v.  Snow,  5  Mass.  547, 

1160 
Dillon  V.  Cockroft,  90  N.  Y.  649, 

1045,  1050 
Dillon  V.  Heller,  39  Kan.  599,  S. 

C.  18  Pac.  R.  693,  275,  444 

Dillon  V.  Rand,  15  Col.  372,  605 

Dimes   v.  Grand  Junction,    etc., 

Co.,  16  p:ng.  Law  &  Eq.  63,  218 

Dimes  v.  Grand  Junction  Canal, 

3  H.  L.  Cases  759,  209 

Dimes  v.  Grand  Canal,  etc.,  Co., 

3  H.  L.  Cases,  794,  214 

Dimick  v.  Downs,  82  111.  570, 

705,  803,  804 
Dimmittv.  Robbins,  74  Texas  441, 

S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  94,  637 

Dinsmore  v.  Livingston  Countv, 

60  Mo.  241.  "406 

Dinsmore  v.  Neresheimer,  32  Hun 

204,  282 

Dinwiddie  v.  Jacobs,82  IMo.  195,     1238 
Dinwiddle  v.  State.  103  Ind.  101.     719 
Disborough   v.    Vanness,   3   Hal- 
stead  (N.  J.  L.)  231,  411 
Diss  Debar,  In  re,  3  N.  Y.  SupL, 

667.  294 

District  of  Columbia  v.    Armes, 

107  U.  S.  519,  S.  C.  2  Sup.  Ct. 

R. 840,  519 


XCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\_Iiefe7-ences  ai'e  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
District  of   Columbia  v.  Hutton, 

143  U.  S.  18,  170 

District  of  Columbia  v.  "Washing- 
ton &  G.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Mackev 

361,  ■    3G6 

District  Township  v.  Independent 

District,  (59  la.  88,  S.  C.  28  N. 

W.  R.  449,  343 

District  Township  v.  Rankin,  70 

la.  65,  S.  C.  29  N.  W.  R.  806,  581 
Ditmars  v.  Com.,  47  Pa.  St.  335,  1059 
Ditson  V.  Ditson,  4  R.  I.  87,  287 

Diveny  v.  Elmira,  51  N.  Y.  506, 

645,  654,  662 
Dix  V.  Town,  19  Vt.  262,  581,  582 

Dixon   V.  Caldwell,   15   Ohio   St. 

412,  270 

Dixon  V.  Clark,  5  Com.  B.  365, 

400,  401 
Dixon  V.  Duke,  85  Ind.  434,  526, 

530,  536,  1104,  1106,  1107,  1108,  in5 
Dixon  V.  Judge,  etc.,  26  La.  Ann. 

119,  155 

Dixon  V.  Parks,  1  Ves.  Jr.  402,  1047 
Dixon  V.  Pluns  (Cal.),  31  Pac.  R. 

931  1119 

Dixon  V.  State,  86  Ga.  754,  794,  797 
Doane  v.  Glenn,  21  Wall.  33,  514 

Doane  v.  Glenn,  1  Col.  417,  192 

Doane  v.  Lockwood,  115  111.  490,  1050 
Doane    College    v.    Lanham,    26 

Neb.  421,  S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  405,  574 
Dobbins'  Distillery,  96  U.  S.  395,  277 
Dobbins  v.  McNamara,  113  Ind. 

54,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  887,  455 

Dobbins  v.  Oswalt,  20  Ark.  619,  178 
Dobbins  v.  State,  14  Ohio  St.  493,  177 
Dobson  V.  Cothran,  34  S.  Car.  518, 

S.C.  13S.E.  R.  679,  177,179,1079 
Dobson  V.  Finley,  8  Jones  L.  (N. 

Car.)  495,  539 

Dockertv  V.  Hutson,  125  Ind.  102, 

557,  1092,  1094 
Doctor  V.  Hartman,  74  Ind.  221, 

332,  609,  1214 
Dodd  V.  McGraw,  8  Ark.  83,  S.  C. 

46  Am.  Dec.  301,  541 

Dodd  V.  Moore,  91  Ind.  522,  516 

Dodds  V.  Vannoy,  61  Ind.  89,  362 

Dodds  V.  Hakes,  114  N.  Y.  260,  S. 

C.  21  N.  E.  R.  398,  574,  600 

Dodge  V.  Brennan,  59  N.  H.  138,  592 
Dodge  V.  Colbv,  108  N.  Y.  445,  306 
Dodge  V.  Cole,  97  111.  338,  S.  C. 

37Am.  R.  Ill,  289 

Dodge  V.  Dunham,  41  Ind.  186,  705 
Dodge  V.  Israel,  4  Wash.  C.  C. 

323,  509 

Dodge  V.  Janvrin,  59  N.  H.  16,  539 
Dodge  V.  People,  4  Neb.  220,  667 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Dodge   V.    Phelan,   2    Tex.   Civil 

App.  441,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  309,  607 
Dodge  V.  Pope,  93  Ind.  480, 

1156,  1170 
Dodson  V.  Scroggs,  47  Mo.  285, 

214,  239,  248,  258 
Doe  V.  Anderson,  5  Ind.  33,  274 

Doe  V.  Bowen,  8  Ind.  197,  274 

Doe  V.  Brown,  8  Blackf.  443,  508,  513 
Doe  V.  Considine,  6  AVall.  458,  119 
Doev.  Davies,  L.  R.  lOQ.  B.315,  524 
Doe  V.  Harvey,  5  Blkf.  487,  274 

Doe   V.  Litherberry,    4    McLean 

442,  314 

Doe  V.  Makepeace,  8  Blackf.  575, 

1224,  1235 
Doe  V.  Rosser,  3  East  15,  598 

Doe  V.  Smith,  1  Ind.  451, 

128,  322,  1228 
Doe  V.  Snowdon,  2  W.  Bl.  1224,  553 
Doe  V.  Spence,  6  East  120,  553 

Doe  V.  State  Bank,  4  McLean  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  339,  266 

Doe  V.  Wandlars,  7  T.  R.  117,  392 
Doev.Whitaker,5B.&Ad.  409,  145 
Doherty   v.  Doherty,    148    Mass. 

367,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  352,  591 

Dohms  V.  Mann,  76  la.  723,  443 

Dogan  V.  Brown,  44  Miss.  235,  451 
Dogge  V.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co., 

49  Wis.  501,  595 

Doggett  V.  Jordan,  2  Fla.  541,  535 

Dolan  V.  Church,  1  Wyo.  187,  233 

Dolan  V.  Court  of  Good  Samari- 
tan, 128  Mass.  437,  588 
Dolan  V.  Merrett,  18  Hun  27,         1146 
Dolan  V.  People,  64  N.  Y.  485,        652 
Dolan  V.  State,  122  Ind.  141, 

557, 665,  1154 
Dolby  v.Mullins,  3  Hump.  (Tenn.) 

437,  S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  180,  198 

Dole  V.  Johnson,  50  N.  H.  452, 

524,  740 
Dole  V.  Wooldredge,    135   Mass. 

140,  S.  C.  2  N.  E.  R.  680,  1127 

Dole  V.   Wooldredge,   142  Mass. 

161,  S.  C.  7  N.  E.  R.  832,  788 

Doll  V.  State,  45  Ohio  St.  445,  S. 

C.  15  N.  E.  R.  293,  659 

Dollman  v.  Munson,  90  Mo.  85,  S. 

C.  2  S.  W.  R.  134,  1160,  1171 

Dollner  v.  Lintz,  84  N.Y.  669,  803 

Dolson  V.  Arnold,  10  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  528,  567 

Doly  V.  Gillett,  43  Mich.  202,  111 

Domingues  v.  Domingues,  4  Cal. 

186,  142,  155 

Dominguez   v.    Mascotti,  74   Cal. 

269,  1163 

Dominick  v.  Eacker,  3  Barb.  17,    434 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


XCVU 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Donahoe  v.  New  York,   etc.,  Co. 

(Mass.),34N.  E.  K.  87,  740 

Donahoe  v.  Rich,  2  Ind.  App.540, 

S.  C.  28N.  E.  li.  1001,  675 

Donahue  v.  Roberts,  19  Fed.R.863,  510 
Donald  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  52 

la.  411,  1138 

Donald  v.  Nelson,  1)4  Ahi.  Ill,  S. 

C.  10  So.  R.  317,  178 

Donelson  v.Taylor,8  Pick. (Mass.) 

390,  517 

Donlin  v.  Ilettineer,  57  111.  348,  443 
Donnell  v.  Jones,  13  Ala.  490,  S. 

C.  48  Am.  I  )ec.  59,     180,  509,  737,  738 
Donnell  v.  Jones,  17  Ala.  689,  S. 

C.  52  Am.  Dec.  194,  465 

Donnelly  v.  Burkett,  75  la.  613,  1149 
Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.500,  285 
Donnelly  v.    Daggett,  145   Mass. 

314,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  161,  552 

Donnelly  v.  Woolsey,  59  Hun  618,  313 
Donoghue  V.Indiana, etc.,  Rv.Co., 

87  5lich.  13,  S.  C.  49  N.  \V.  R. 

512,  1112 

Donohue,  In  re,  52  How.  Pr.  251,  294 
Donohue  v.  Woodbury,   6  Cush. 

148,  S.  C.  52  Am.  Dec.  777,  566 

Donovan  v.  Clark,  138  N.  Y.  631, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  1066,        1212, 1218 
Donovan  v.  People,  139  111.  412,  S. 

C.  28  N.  E.  R.  964,  650 

Doogood  v.  Rose,  9  C.  B.  132,  1156 
Doolev   V.    Barker,   2    Mo.    App. 

325,"  176,  178 

Doolev V.  Miller,  2  Tex.  Civil  App. 

132,' S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  157,  800 

Dooley  v.  State,  28  Ind.  239,  1120 

Doolev  Block  v.  Salt  Lake,  etc., 

Co.,"  9  Utah  31,  S.  C.  33  Pac.  R. 

229,  1141 

Doolittle  V.  Broome,  18N.Y.  155,  483 
Doolittle  V.  Ilolton,  28  Vt.  819,  S. 

C.  67  Am.  Dec.  745,  128 

Doran  v.  Mullen,  78  111.  342,  728 

Doran  v.  Rvan,  81  Wis.  63,  S.  C. 

51  N.  AV.  R.  259,  1115 

Doran  v.  Shaw,  3  T.  B.  Mon.  411, 

1125,  1234 
Dore  v.  Billings,  26  Maine  56,  550 
Doremus  v.  Walker,  8  Ala.  194,  196 
Dorland  v.  norland,  66  Cal.  189,  360 
Dorman  v.  State,  56  Ind.  454,  163 

Dorman  v.  State,  34  Ala.  216,  176 

Dormsy  v.  Knower,  55  Iowa  722,  593 
Dornick  v.  Reichenback,  10  S.  & 

R.  84,  1118 

Dorr  V.  Fenno,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 

521,  1120 

Dorr  V.  Gibbony,  3  Hughes  382,      336 

G 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  rj03-1244.] 

Dorr  V.  Roiir,  82  Va.  359,  S.  C.  3 

Am.  St.  R.  106,        111,  279,  336,  339 
Dorr  V.  Tremont  Bank,  128  Mass. 

349,  675 

Dorsch  v.Rosenthall,39  Ind.  209,  1165 
Dorsev  v.  Mc^iee,  30  Neb.  657,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  1018,  ^       1167 

Dorsheimer  v.  Rorback,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  33,  1202 

Doss  v.  Birks,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

430,  724 

Dotron  v.  Bailev,  76  Ind.  434,  350 
Dotson  V.  State"  62  Ala.  141,  652 

Doty  V.  Mich.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  8 

Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  427,  441 

Doty  V.  State,  6  Blackf.  529,  637 

Dougherty  v.  Jones,  37  Ga.  348,  498 
Dougherty  v.  McWhorter,  7  Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  239,  590 

Doughty  v.  Doughty,  27  N.  J.  Eq. 

315,  287 

Doughty    v.    Elliott,    8    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  405,  1048 

Doughty  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  33  N. 

J.  Eq.  1,  484 

Doughty  V.  Somerville,  etc.,  Co., 

7  N.  J.  Eq.  629,  492 

Douglas  V.  Dakin,  46  Cal.  49,  31 

Douglas  V.  Elkins,  28  N.  H.  26,  367 
Douglas  V.  Hill,  29  Kan.  527,  818 

Douglas  V.  Patrick,  3  Term.  Rep. 

683,  400,  401 

Douglass  V.  County  of  Baker,  23 

Fla.  419,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  776,  202 

Douglass  V.  Mitchell,  35  Pa.  St.440,  21 
Douglass  V.  Neguelona,  88  Tenn. 

769,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  283,  332 

Douglass  V.  Todd,  96  Cal.  638,  S. 

C.  31  Am.  St.  R.  247,  1200 

Douthit  V.  Douthit,  133  Ind.  26,  1147 
Douthit  V.  Mohr,  116  Ind.  482,  529 
Dove  V.  Royal  Ins.  Co.,  98  Mich. 

— ,  S.  C."57  N.  AV.  R.  30,  739 

Dover  Stamping  Co.  v.  Noyes,  151 

Mass.  342,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  53,     413 
Dow  v.  Merrill,  65  N.  H.  107,  S. 

C.  18  Atl.  R.  317,  1143 

Dowdell  V.  Wilcox,  64  la.  721, 

821,  823 
Dowden  v.  State,  106  Ind.  157,  305 
Dowdy  V.  Com.,  9  Gratt.   (Va.) 

727,"  666 

Dowell  V.  Lahr,  97  Ind.  146,  445,451 
Doweil   V.    Richardson,    10    Ind. 

573,  1113 

Dowell  V.  Tucker,  46  Ark.  438,  380 
Dowling  V.  Allen,  88  Mo.  293, 

630,  &36 
Dowling  V.  Polack,  18  Cal.  625,     1180 


XCVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\_References  are  to  Fages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 


Downard  v.  Hadley,  116  Ind.  131, 

S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  457,  111 

Downer  v.  Baxter,  30  Vt.  467,  1124 
Downer  v.  Dana,  19  Vt.  338,  800 

Downer  v.  Rowell,  24  Vt.  343,  738 
Downev  v.  Dav,  4  Ind.  531,  675 

Downey  v.  O'Donnell,  86  111.  49,  406 
Downej  v.  Smith,  13  111.  671,  138 

"Downey  v.  State,  77  Ind.  87,  1143 

Downey   v.   Washburn,    79    Ind. 

242,  1139 

Downin  v.  Sprecher,  35  Md.  474,  290 
Downs  V.  Allen,  10  Lea  (Tenn.) 

562,  381 

Downs  V.  Cooper,  2  Q.  B.  256,  572 
Dows  V.  Rush,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

157,  1078 

Doyal  V.  State,  70  Ga.  134,  654 

Doyle  V.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  44  Cal. 

264,  529 

Doyle  V.  Teas,  5  111.  202,  411 

Doyle  V.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  147 

U.  S.  413,  S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

333,  1071 

Doyle  V.  Wade,  23  Fla.  90,  S.  C. 

11  Am.  St.  R.  334,  380 

-Doyn  V.  Ebbesen,  72  Wis.  284,  S. 

C.  39  N.  W.  R.  535,  406 

Draghicevich  v.Vulicevich,76  Cal. 

378,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  406,  589 

Drainage  Commissioners  v.  Giffin, 

134  111.  330,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  Rep. 

995,  637 

DrainageCommissioners  v.Waeltz, 

41  111.  App.  575,  1209 

Drake  v.  Cockroft,  4  E.  D.  Smith 

(N.  Y.)  34,  22 

Drake  v.  Cockroft,  10  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  377,  528 

Drake  v.  Duvenick,  45  Cal.  455,  1199 
Drake  v.    Farmers',  etc.,    Co.,  3 

Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  325,  557 

Drake  v.  Hale,  38  Mo.  346,  447 

Drake  v.  Hanshaw,  47  la.  291,        293 

Drake  v.  State,  75  Ga.  413,  809 

'.Drake  v.  State,  53  N.  J.  L.  23,  S. 

C.  20  Atl.  R.  747,  666 

Drane  v.  McGavook,  7  Hump.  132,  197 
Draper  v.  Arnold,  12  Mass.  449,  198 
Draper  v.  Draper,  68  111.  17,  520 

Draper  v.  Jones,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

263,  560 

Draughan  v.  Bank,  1  Stew.  66,  S. 

C.  18  Am.  Dec.  38,  191 

Dravo  v.  Fabel,  25  Fed.  R.  116,  S. 

C.  132  U.S.  487,  796 

Drawdv  v.  Littlefield,  75  Ga.  215,  2.30 
Drebert  v.  Trier,  106  Ind.  510,  1129 
Dresser  v.  Van  Pelt,  15  How.  Pr. 

19,  299 


Drew  V.  Towle,  30  N.  H.  531,  536 

Drew  V.  Wood,  26 N.  H.  363,  796 

Drexel  v.  Berney,  122  U.  S.  241, 

314,  315 
Drexel  v.  Man,  6  W.  &  S.  (Pa.) 

386,  S.  C.  40  Am.  Dec.  573,  1242 
Drexel  v.  Miller,  49  Pa.  St.  246,  423 
Drexel  v.  Pease,  129  N.  Y.  96,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  241,  180 

Drey  v.  Dovle,  28  Mo.  App.  249,  411 
Drev  V.  Doyle,  99  Mo.  459,  549 

Drevfousv.  Hart,  36  La.  Ann.  929,  593 
Dreyfus  v.  Mayer,  69  Miss.  282,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  267,  297 

Driggs  V.  Abbott,  27  Vt.  580,  S.  C. 

65  Am.  Dec.  214,  314 

Driggs  V.  Burton,  44  Vt.  124,  552 

Driggs  V.  Dwight,  17  Wend.  71,  1225 
Driggs  V.  Phillips,  103  N.  Y.  77,  366 
Drinkhouse  v.  Spring  Vallev,  etc., 

Co.,  80  Cal.  308,  S.  C.  22  Pac. 

R.  252,  304 

Drunningberg    v.     Indianapolis, 

etc.,  Co.,  13  Ind.  103,  1177 

Druscott  V.  King,  6  N.  Y.  147,  239 
Druse  v.  Wheeler,  26  Mich.  189,  554 
Dryden  v.  Britton,  19  Wis.  31,  1053 
Dryer  v.  Brown,  52  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

321,  811 

Drysdale  V.  Biloxi  Canning  Co., 

67  Miss.  534,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  541,  445 
Duane  v.  Simmons,  4  Yeates (Pa.) 

441,  1115 

Duanesburg  v.  Jenkins,  40  Barb. 

574,  324 

Dube  V.  Lewiston,  83  Me.  211,  S. 

C.  22  Atl.  R.  112,  536 

Dubois  V.  Campau,  28  Mich.  304,  1090 
Dubois  V.  Turner,  4  Yeates   (Pa.) 

361,  173 

Du  Breuil   v.   Pennsylvania    Co., 

130  Ind.  137,  '  306 

Dubuque  y.  Miller,  11  Iowa  583,  400 
Ducie  y.  Ford,  8  Mont.  233,  S.  C. 

19  Pac.  R.  414,  528 

Duckerv.  Whitson,   112  N.  Car. 

44,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  854,  736 

Duckworth  y.  Diggles,  139  Mass. 

51 ,  S.  C.  29  S.  E.  R.  221,  593,  601 
Dudley  v.  P\arris,  79  Ala.  187,  1184 
Dudley  v.  Frankfort,  12  B.  Mon. 

610,  366 

Dudley  y.  Hurst,  67  Md.  44,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  R.  368,  485 

Dudley  y.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9,  485 
Duer  V.  Boyd,  1  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

203,  599 

Duerhagen  v.  Ins.  Co.,  2  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  "185,  1034 

Duerison  y.  Bellows,l  Blackf.  217,    184 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


XCIX 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 


Duesterberg  v.  State,  110  Ind.  144, 

S.  C.  17  N.  E.  R.  024,  1091 

Duffv.  I)u&(Cal.),3orac.R.437,  1106 
Daft"  V.  IhiH,  71  Cal.  513,  1103 

Diitf  V.  Wynkoop,  74  Pa.  St.  300,  344 
Dullielil  V.  Kosenzwcig,   144   Pa. 

St.  620,  S.  C.  23  All.  R.  4,  350 

Duffin  V.  People,  107  111.  113,  S. 

C.  47  Am.  Rep.  431,  8,35 

Duffitt  V.  Tuhan,  28  Kan.  292,  307 
Duffy  V.  Hiokev,  68  Wis.  380,  S. 

C.  32  N.  W.  R.  54,  632 

Duffv  V.  Ogden,  64  Pa.  St.  240,  379 
Dufour  V.  Lang,  54  Fed.  R.  913  1187 
Dufresne  v.  Weise,  40  Wis.  290, 

805,  800 
Dugan  V.  Anderson,  39  Md.  507, 

S.  C.  11  Am.  R.  509,  302 

Dugan    V.   Follett,    100    111.   581, 

361,  371 
Dugan  V.  State,  125  Ind.  130,  S. 

C.  9  L.  R.  Anno.  321,  309 

Dugan  V.  Thomas,  79  Me.  221,  S. 

C.  9  Atl.  R.  354,  408 

Duggins  V.  Watson,  15  Ark.  118, 

S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  500,  1007 

Duigenan  v.  Claus,  46  Kan.  275, 

S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  099,  152 

Duke  V.  State,  57  Miss.  229,  314 

Duke  V.  Strickland,  43  Ind.  494, 

33  34 
Dukes  V.  Cole,  129  Ind.  137,  S.  C.  ' 

28  N.  E.  R.  441,  1208 

Dukes  V.  Rowley,  24  111.  210,  235 

Dula  V.  Cowles,  7  Jones  L.  (N. 

Car.)  290,  558 

Dulany  v.  Elford,  22  S.  Car.  304,  535 
Du  Laurans  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  15  Minn.  49,  554 

Duluth  Chamber  of  Commerce  v. 

Knowlton,  42  Minn.  229,  S.  C. 

44  N.  W.  R.  2,  1052 

Dumas  v.  State,  62  Ga.  56,  656 

Dumn  V.  Rothermel,  112  Pa.  St. 

272,  536,  537,  542 

Dunbar  v.  Locke,  62  N.  H.  442, 

110,  130 
Duncan  v.  Forgey,  25  Mo.  App. 

310,  254,  1183 

Duncan  v.  Gerdine,  59  Miss.  550, 

428,  455 
Duncan  v.  Tufts,  52  Ark.  404,  638 

Duncan  v.  Welty.  20  Ind.  44,  516 

Duncan    v.    Wickliffe,    4    Mete. 

(Ky.)  118,  604 

Duncombe  v.  Daniell,  8  Carr.  & 

P.  222,  692 

Dunham,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dandelin,  143 

111.  409,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  258, 

1043,  1052 


Dunham  v.  Schindler,  17  Ore.  256, 

S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  320,  313 

Dunkle  v.  ELston,  71  Ind.  585,  438 
Diinla].  V.  Perrv,  .39  Am.  Dec.  413,  738 
l)uiil:ipv.Fox(Mi.ss.),2So.  R.  109,  819 
Dunlap  V.  Robinson,  12  Ohio  St. 

530,  1193 

Dunlap  V.  Steere,  92  Cal.  344,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  Anno.  301,  59 

Dunlop  V.  Patterson,  74  N.  Y.  145,  197 
Dunlop  V.Peter,  1  Cranch   C.  C. 

(U.  S.)  403,  679 

Dunn  V.  Bell,  85  Tenn.  581,  375 

Dunn  V.  Crocker,  22  Ind.  324,  405,  469 
Dunn  V.  Dunnaker,  87  Mo.  597,  794 
Dunn  V.  Gibson,  9  Neb.  513,  1216 

Dunn  V.  Hall,  8  Blkf.(Ind.)  32,  1119 
Dunn  V.  People,  29  N.  Y.  523,  705 
Dunn  V.  Pipes,  20  La.  Ann.  270,  792 
Dunn  V.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  600,  655 
Dunn  V.  State,  2  Ark.  229,  S.  C.  35 

Am.  Dec.  54,  142 

Dunningv.  Galloway,  47  Ind.  182,  1048 
Dunns  v.  Batchelor,  3  Dev.  &  B. 

52,  1191 

Dunsworth  v.  Walter  A.Wood  Ma- 
chine Co.,  29  111.  App.  23,  389 
Dupont  V.  Staring,  42  Mich.  492,  1093 
Dupoyster  v.  Gagani,  84  Kv.  403,  29 
Durant  v.  Essex  Co.,  7  Wall.  107,  1177 
DuRaut  V.  DuRaut,  30  S.  Car.  49, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.929,  720 

Durfee  v.  Abbott,  01  :Mich.  471,  S. 

C.  28  N.  AV.  R.  521,  541 

Durfee  v.  Abbott,  50  Mich.  479,  1083 
Durham  v.  Shannon,  110  Ind.  403,  519 
Durham  v.  Smith,  120  Ind.  403,  079 
Durham   v.  State,  117   Ind.   477, 

130,  137,309 
Duringer  V.  ^loschino,  93  Ind.  495,  458 
Durkee  v.  City  of  Janesville,  28 

Wis.  404,  121 

Durkee  v.  Leland,  4  Vt.  612,  505,  506 
Durkee  v.Mavo,!  Aik.(Vt.)129,  1178 
Durnell  v.  Sowden,  5  Utah  216,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  334,  555 

Durr  v.  Hervev,  44  Ark.  301,  S.  C. 

51  Am.  R.  594,  465 

Dusev  V.  Prudon,  95  Cal.  640,  S.  C. 

30  Pac.  R.  798.  1200 

Dusing  V.  Nelson.  7  Col.  184,  11S2 

Duson  V.  Dnpre,  32  La.  Ann.  896,  314 
Dutcher  v.  Dutcher,  39  AVis.  651,  287 
Dutcher  v.  Hill,  29  Mo.  271,  289 

Dutton  V.  Seevers  (la.),  56  N.  W. 

R.398,  1167 

Dutton  V.  Shaw,  35  Mich.  431, 

301,  1177 
Dutton  V.  Solmonson,  3  Bo3.&  P. 

582,  390 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Duvall  V.  Craig,  2  Wheat.  45,  423,  454 
Duval  V.  Wellman,  124  N.  Y.  156, 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  343,  541 

Dwiggins  v.  Cook,  71  Ind.  579, 

319,  436 
Dwight  V.  Germania  Life  Ins.  Co., 

103  N.  Y.  341,  S.  C.  57  Am.  R. 

729,  1053 

Dwight  V.  Merritt,  18  Blatch.  (U. 

S.)  305,  423,  433 

Dwinelle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  120  N.  Y.  117,  S.  C.  24  N. 

:E.  R.  319,  S.  C.  8  L.  R.  A.  224,    535 
Dwver  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  52 

Fed.  R.  87,  1055 

Dvas  V.Hanson,  14  ]Mo.  App.  363,  555 
Dyckman  v.  Mayor,  5  N.  Y.  434,  323 
Dyer  v.  ^IcHenry,  13  Iowa,  527,  475 
Dyer  v.  Morris,  4  Mo.  214,  696 

Dver  v.  Tavlor,  50  Ark.  314,  S.  C. 

7  S.  W.  R.  258,  1092 

Dyson  v.  West,  1  Harr.  &  J.  567,    298 


E 


Eachus  V.  Trustees,  17  111.  534,  306 
Eager  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Mass. 

182,  380 

Eagle  &  P.  Mfg.  Co.  v.   Belcher, 

89Ga.218,  S.  C.15S.E.  R.  482,     556 
Eames  v.  Kaiser,  142  U.  S.  488, 

S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  302,  783 

Earbee   v.  Ware,  9  Port.   (Ala.) 

291,  454 

Earl  V.  Camp,  16  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

562,  465 

Earl   v.    Hurd,  5   Blackf.   (Ind.) 

248,  513 

Earl  V.  Matheney,  60  Ind.  202,  474 
Earle  v.  Earle,  91  Ind.  27,  146 

Earle  v.  McVeigh,  91  U.  S.  503, 

280,  339,  438 
Earll  V.  People,  73  111.  329,  1074 

Earls  V.  Earls,  27  Kan.  538, 

142,  155,  156,  1164 
Early  v.  Hamilton,  75  Ind.  376,  1140 
Early  v.  Moore,  4  Munf.  262,  1191 

Earnhart  v.  Lebanon,  5  Ohio  C. 

C.  578,  1238 

Eartlunan  v.  .lones,  2  Yerg.  484,  297 
Eason  v.  Miller,  18  S.  Car.  381,  1163 
Eason  v.  State,  6  Baxt.  466,  661 

East  Dallas  v.  Barksdale,  83  Tex. 

117,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  329,  625 

East  Line  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Brinker, 

68  Texas  500,  658 

East  Line,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 

72  Texas  70,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St. 

R.  758,  .564,  565,  1066 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 

East  Rome  Town  v.   Cothran,  81 

Ga.  359,  224 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fleet- 
wood, 90  Ga.  23,  S.  C.  16  S.  E. 

R.  778,  623 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ma- 

honev,  89  Tenn.  311,  S.  C.  15  S. 

W.  R.  652,  314 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sud- 

deth,  86  Ga.  388,  S.  C.  12  S.  E. 

R.  682,  610,  637 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.Turva- 

ville  (Ala.),  12So.  R.  63,  721 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whit- 
lock,  75  Ga.  77,  1162 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co,  v. 

Bayliss,   74  Ala.  150,  S.  C.    19 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  480,         547 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Winters.  85  Tenn.  240,   S.  C.  1 

S.  W.  R.  790,  1119 

Easterbrook   v.    Easterbrook,    64 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  421,  446 

Easterly   v.    Goodwin,   35   Conn. 

279,  S.  C.  95  Am.  Dec.  237,  285 

Eastern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robertson,  6 

Man.  &G.38,  580 

Eastham  v.  Sallis,  60  Tex.  576,  183 
Eastis  V.  Montgomery,  93  Ala.  293, 

S.  C.  9So.  R.  311,  535 

Eastland  v.  Fogo,  58  Wis.  274.  543 
Eastman  v.  Burleigh,  2N.  H.  484, 

583  587 
Eastman  v.  Concord, 64  N.  H.  263, '  156 
Eastman  v.  Dearborn,   63  N.   H. 

364,  463 

Eastman  v.  Harteau,  12  Wis.  267,  183 
Eastman  v.  Linn,  26  Minn.  215,  446 
Eastman  v.  Premo,  49  Vt.  355,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  R.  142,  956 

Eastman  v.  State,  109  Ind.  278,  212 
Eastman  v.  Wadleigh,  65  Me.  251, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  Rep.  695,  462 

Eastman  v.  Waterman,26  Vt.  494,  327 
Eastman  Co.    v.  Reichenback,  20 

N.  Y.  S.  110,  485 

Eastwood  V.  Buel,  1  Ind.  434,  218 

Eastwood  V.  Kennedv,44  Md.563,  385 
Eastwood  V.  Kennedy ,44  Md.  563,  374 
Eaton  V.  Badger,  33  N.  H.  228, 

259,  280 
Eaton  V.  Barnhill,  68  Miss.  305, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  849,  1168 

Eaton  V.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  51  H. 

N.  604,  S.  C.  12  Am.  R.  147, 

108,  1006 
Eaton  V.  Caldwell,  3  Minn.  134,  1202 
Eaton  V.  Gentle,  1  Chand.  (Wis.) 

10,  520 

Eaton  V.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  445,  551 


TABLE    OF    CARES. 


CI 


[Eeferences  or?  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Eaton  V.  Knowk's.rtl  Mich.  ()25,      564 
Eaton  V.  Lincoln,  18  Mass.  424,      567 
Eaton  V.  Smith,  20  Pick.   (Mass.) 

150,  538 

Eaton  V.  Strong,  7  l\Iass.  312,  1156 
Ebberle  v.  Mayer,  51  In<l.  235,  33 

Eberhardt  v.  Sanger,  51  Wis.  72,  1097 
Ebert  v.  Ebert,  5  Md.  353,  600 

Eborn  v.  Zimpelnian,  47  Tex.  503, 

S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  315,  8,  35 

Eckel  V.  Walker,  48  la.  225,  1163 

Eeker  v.  McAllister,  45  Md.  290,  801 
E:ckert  V.  Binklev,  134  Ind.  614,  S. 

C.  33  N.  K.  R.619,  558,  1163,  1169 
Eckman  v.  Kckiuan,  68  Pa.  St.  460,  513 
Eckstein  v.  Downing,  64  N.  H.  248,  290 
Eddlemanv.  McGlatherv,  74  Tex. 

280,  S.C.  11  S.W.R.  lioO,  1047,1180 
Eddy  V.  Caldwell,  7  Minn.  225,  33 
Eddv  V.  Chace,  140  Mass.  471,  536 
Eddy  V.  Davis.  116  N.  Y.  247,  S.  C. 

22  N.  E.  R.  362,  405 

Eddy  V.  Evans,  58  Fed.  R.  151,  1057 
Eddv  V.  Lafayette,  49  Fed.  R.  807, 

441,  612 
Eddy  V.  Moore,  23  Kan.  113,  469 

Edel  V.  McCone,  31  N.  Y.  553,  344 
Edelen  v.  Edelen,  6  Md.  288,  679 

Edelen  v.  Thompson,  2  Har.  &  G. 

(:\rd.)  31,  1121 

Edelman  v.  Yeakel,  27  Pa.  St.  26,  538 
Edgington,  In  re,  10  Nev.  215,  304 
Edgington  v.  Fitzmaurice, 55  Law 

Jour.  Rep.  (Ch.)  650,  544 

Edmonds  v.  State,  34  Ark.  720,  1165 
Edmondson  v.  Barrell,  2  Cranch 

C.  C.  228,  513 

Edmondston  v.  Drake,  5  Peters, 

624,  413 

Edmunds  v.  Griffin,  41  N.  H.  529,  372 
Edmunds  V. Herbrandson, 2  N. Dak. 

270,  S.  C.  14  L.  R.  A.  725,  50  N. 

W.  R.  970,  121,  171 

Edrington  v.  League,  1  Texas  64,  594 
Edsall  V.  Ayers,  15  Ind.  2S6,  180, 1159 
Edson  V.  Sprout,  33  Vt.  77,  475 

Educational  Ass'n  v.  Hitchcock, 

4  Kan.  36,  521 

Edwards,  In  re,  35  Kan.  99,  S.  C. 

10  Pac.  R.  539,  154 

Edwards  v. Crenshaw,  30  Mo.  App. 

510,  794 

Edwardsv. Goldsmith, 16  Pa.  St.43,  537 
Edwards  v.  Hushing,  31  111.  App. 
.     223,  678 

Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.595,  348 
Edwards  v.  Russell,  21  Wend.  63, 

209,  204 
Edwards  v.  Smith,  16  Col.  529,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  809,  1079 


.  1-002,  Vol.  //.  pp.  003-7244.] 
Edwards  v.  Smith,  63  Mo.  119, 

536,  538 
Edwards    v.     Stevens,    3     Allen 

(Mass.)  315,  595 

Edwards  v.  State,  25  Ark.  444,        632 
Edwards  v.  Tracy,  62  Pa.  St.  374, 

713,  1216 
Edwards  v.    Vandeniack,   13  111. 

633,  29(> 

Edwards  v.Watkins,  17  Mo.  273,     1200 
Efner  v.  Shaw,  2  Wend.  567,  573 

Egan  V.  Menard,  32  Minn.  273,       112 
Egbert   v.    Citizens'    Ins.    Co.,   7 

Fed.  R.  47,  511 

Egerton  v.  Hart,  8  Vt.  207,  336 

Egerv  V.  Power,  5  Tex.  501,  1046 

Egolf  V.  Brvant,  63  Ind.  365,  1046 

Ehle  v.  Dei'tz,  32  111.  App.  547,        393 
Ehrmantrout    v.     McMahon,    78 

Wis.    138,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.    R. 

305,  1045 

Eickman  v.  Troll,  29  Minn.  124,     605 
Eidt  V.  Cutter,  127  Mass.  522,  812 

Eisenlord  v.    Clum,   126    N.    Y. 

552,  519 

Eisenmever  v.  Sauter,  77  111.  515, 

576,      "  602 

Eitel  V.  Foote,  39  Cal.  439,  266 

Ela  V.  Cockshott,  119  Mass.  416,    1063 
Ela  V.  Ela  (Mass.)  32  N.  E.   R. 

957,  376 

p]la  V.  McConihe,  35  N.  H.  279, 

148,  300,  345 
Ela  V.  Smith,  5  Grav  121,  S.  C.  66 

Am.  Dec.  356,       '  165,  324,  427 

Elam  v.  State,  25  Ala.  53,  805 

Elbert  v.  Hobv,  73  Ind.  Ill,  1230 

Elderkin  v.  Fellows,  60  Wis.  339,   400 
Eldred  v.  Bank,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

545,  615 

Eldred  v.  Becker,  60  Wis.  48,  632 

Kldredse  v.  Bell,  64  la.  125,  1160 

Eldridge    v.    Folwell,    3   Blackf. 

(Ind.)  207,  609 

Eldridge  v.  State,  12  Tex.  App. 

208.  1224 

Electric   Imp.   Co.   v.   San  Jose, 

etc.,  Co.  (Cal.)  31  Pac.  R.  455,     1115 
Elee  V.  AVait,  28  111.  70,  447,  448 

Elgin  V.  Beckwith,  119  111.  367,  10 

N.  E.  R.  558,  543 

Elgin  V.  Goff,  38  111.  App.  362,        365 
Elgin  V.  Hill,  27  Cal.  372,  520 

Elgin,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Ravmond,  148 

ril.241,S.C.  35  N.E.R.729,    1072. 1094 
Elsin   Lumber  Co.  v.   Langman, 

23  111.  App.  250,  "    253,  492 

Eliot  V.  Lawton,  7  Allen  274,  362 

Eliot  V.   ]McCormack,   144   Mass. 

10,  428,  463 


Cll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


'^Eefereiices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Eller  V.  Richardson,  89  Tenn.  575, 

S.  C.  15  S.  \V.  K.  (350,  314,  510 

Ellicott  V.  Warford,  4  Md.  80,         194 
Elligood  V.  Cannon,  4  Harr.  176, 

319,  1196 
Ellingham  v.  Mount,  43  N.  J.  L. 

470,  298 

Elliott  V.Adams,  8  Blackf .  (Ind.) 

103,  602 

Elliott  V.  Callow,  2  Salk.  597,  403 

Elliott  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

150  U.  S.  245,  S.  C.  14  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  85,  1054 

Elliott  V.  Frakes,  71  Ind.  412,  340 

Elliott  V.  Jordan,  7  Baxt.  376,  183, 1192 
Elliott  V.  Leak,  4  Mo.  540,  1195 

Elliott  V.  Lawhead,  43  Ohio  St. 

171,  S.C.  1  N.  E.  R.  577, 

333,  454,  612 
Elliott  V.  Mills,  10  Ind.  .368,  1124 

EUiott  V.  Pell,  1  Paige  253,  1185 

Elliott  V.  Piersol,  1  Pet.  328,     168,  240 
Elliott  V.  Reynolds,  38  Kan.  274, 

S.  C.  16  Pac.  698,  1090 

EUiott  V.  State,  73  Ind.  10,  657 

Elliott  V.  Sinclair,  Jacob,  545,         477 
Elliott  V.  Woodward,  18  Ind.  183, 

1079 
Ellis    V.    Boston,    etc.,   Co.,   107 

Mass.  1,  194 

Ellis  V.  Davis,  109  U.  S.  485,  270 

Ellis  V.  Dunn,  3  Ala.  632,  1192 

Ellis  V.  Ewbank,  3  Scam,  190,  187 

Ellis  V.  Goodnow,  40  Vt.  237,  475 

Ellis  V.  Jones,  6  How.  Pr.  296,       1200 
Ellis  V.  Keller,  82  Ind.  524,  192 

Ellis  V.  Kelso,  18  B.  Mon.  296, 

368,  369 
Ellis  V.  Martin,  60  Ala.  394,  33 

Ellis   V.    Northern,  etc.,   Co.,  80 

Wis.  459,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  397, 

1177 
Ellis  V.  Ohio  Life  and  Trust  Co.,  4 

Ohio  St.  628,  1054 

Ellis  V.  Paige,   1   Pick.    (Mass.) 

43,  553 

Ellis  V.  Smith,  42  Ala.  349,  220 

Ellis  V.  State,  25  Fla.  702,  S.  C.  6 

So.  R.  768,  662,  667 

Ellis  V.  Ward  (111.),  25  N.  E.  R. 

530,  372 

Ellison  V.  Bernstein,  60  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  145,  465 

Ellison  V.  Nickols,  1  Ind.  477,        1195 
Ellison  V.  Tuttle,  26  Tex.  283,  473 

Ellithorpe  v.  Buck,  17   Ohio   St. 

72  1131 

Ellsworth  V.  Campbell,  31  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  134,  605 

Ellsworth  V.  Learned,  21  Vt.  535,    183 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Ellsworth  V.  Moore,  5  la.  486, 

29,  31,  163,  218 
Ellsworth  V.  Potter,  41  Vt.  685,  797 
Elmendorf  v.   Harris,   23  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  628,  S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec. 

587,  593 

Elmendorf  v.  Taylor,  10  Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  152,  376 

Elmore  v.  Grymes,  1  Pet.  469, 

1039,  1044 
Elmore  v.  Overton,  104  Ind.  548, 

S.  C.  54  Am.  R.  343,  212 

Elster  v.  Springfield,  49  Ohio  St. 

82,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  274,  1081 

Elston  V.  Castor,  101  Ind.  426, 

982,  1105,  1149 
Elston  &  W.  G.  Road  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple, 96  111.  584,  1069 
Eltzroth  V.  Voris,  74  Ind.  459, 

319,  1196 
Elwell  V.  Fosdick,  134  U.  S.  500,  1137 
Elwell  V.  Johnson,  74  N.  Y.  80,  1188 
Elwood  V.    Western   Union  Tel. 

Co.,  45  N.  Y.  549,  917 

Elwell  V.  Chamberlain,  31  N.  Y. 

611,  669,  676,  685 

Ely  V.  Board  of  Commissioners, 

112  Ind.  361,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R. 

2.36,  168,  241,  324 

Ely  V.  Forward,  7  Mass.  25,  520 

Ely  V.  James,  123  Mass.  36,  545 

Ely  V.  N.  Mex.,  etc.,  Co.,  129 U.  S. 

291,  1176 

Ely  V.  Peck,  7  Conn.  239,  308 

Ely  V.  Tallman,  14  Wis.  28,  316 

Emach  v.  Kane,  34  Fed.  R.  46,        483 
Emanuel  v.  Bridger,  L.  R.,  9  Q. 

B.  286,  470 
Emanuel  v.  Smith,  38  Ga.  602,  473 
Emburv  v.  Connor,   3  N.  Y.   511 

S.  C.  53  Am.  Dec.  325,  333, 343, 1185 
Emeric  v.  Alvarado,  90Cal.  44,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  356,  178 
Emerick  v.  Chesrown,  90  Ind.  47,  360 
Emerson  v.  Bacon,  58  Mich.  526,  467 
Emerson    v.    Atwater,    12   Mich. 

314,  200 

Emerson  v.  Auburn,  13  Hun   (N. 

Y.)  150,  442 

Emerson   v.    Clark,   2   Scam.  111. 

489,  1227 

Emerson  v.  Udald,  19  Vt.  477,  S. 

C.  37  Am.  Dec.  604,  602 

Emery  v.  Owings,  7  Gill  (Md.) 

488,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  580,  593 

Emery  v.  Roval,  117  Ind.  299,  S. 

C.  20N.  E."R.  150,  474 

Emery  v.  Whitwell,  6  Mich.  486, 

181    191    1223 
Emery's  Case,  107  Mass.  172,      '    781 


TABLE    Of   CASES. 


cm 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  /,  pp 
Emison  v.  Shepard,  121  Ind.  184,  1162 
Emlaw  V.  iMiilaw,  20  Mich.  11,        512 
Emmel  v.  Hayes,  102  Mo.  18G,  S. 

C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  7(59,  518 

Emmerich  v.   llefferan,    33  Hun 

54,  1169 

Emmerson  v.Weeks,  58  Cal.  382,  1042 
Emmittv.Yeigh,  12  Ohio  St.  335,  465 
Emory  v.  Owiiigs,  '^  Md.  178,  518 

Empire  v.  Darlington,  101  U.  S. 

529,  284 

Empire,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Blanchard, 

31  O.  St.  650,  1142 

Empire,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Engley,  14 

Col.  289,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  452, 

234,  640 
Empire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Macey,  115 

111.  390,  474 

Empire  State  Type  Co.  v.  Grant, 

114  N.  Y.  40,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R. 

49,  551 

Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta 

Oil  Co.,  63  Pa.  St.  14,  547 

Emrv  V.  Raleigh,  etc.,  Co.,   109 

N.'Car.  589,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R. 

352,  548 

Endicott,  Petitioner,  24  Pick. 339,  1221 
Endslev  v.  State,  76  Ind.  467,  1235 
Enlield  v.  Jordan,  119  U.  S.680,  1177 
England   v.   Garner,  90  N.   Car. 

197,  606 

Engle  V.  State,  50  N.  J.  L.  272, 

1059,  1071 
Engleman  v.  State,  2  Ind.  91, 

379,  1238 
English  V.  Carney,  25  Mich.  178,  412 
English  V.  Devarro,  5  Blkf.  588,  1180 
English  V.  Savage,  5  Ore.  518,  293 
English  V.  Smock,  34  Ind.  115,  481 
English  V.  State.  31  Fla.340,  S.  C. 

12  So.  Rep.  689,  660 

English  V. Woodman,  40  Kan.  412, 

S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  262,  451 

English    V.    Wordman,    40   Kan. 

752,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  2S3,  322 

Engrmann  v.  Estate  of  Immel,  59 

VVis.  249,  382 

Eno  V.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  8 

N.  Y.  S.  197,  491 

Enos  V.  St.   Paul,   etc.,   Co.    (S. 

Dak.),  57N.  W.  R.  919,  1087 

Ennis  v.  Smith,  14  How.  400,  274,  545 
Enright  v.  Montaiik  Fire  Ins.  Co., 

61  Hun  (N.  Y.)  625,  584 

Ensminger  v.  Powers,   108  U.  S. 

292,  253,  492 

Ensien   v.    Ilarnev,  15  Neb.  330, 

S.  C.  48  Am.  R.  344,  645,  662 

Enterprise,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bradley, 

17  111.  App.  509,  1194 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Entnier  v.  Shope,  43  Pa.  St.  110,     595 
Entrekin  v.  Chambers,  11  Kan. 

368,  448 

Epes  V.  Williams  (V^a.),  17  S.  E. 

R.  235,  571 

p]ppert  V.  Hall,  133  Ind.  417,  801 

Equator,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hall,  106  U. 

S.  86,  1157 

Equitable,   etc.,   Ass'n   v.    Stout, 

(Ind.)  33  N.  E.  R.  623,  1116,  1155 
Erben  v.  Lorillard,  19  N.  Y.  299,  720 
Erdmann,  Ek  parte,  88  Cal.  579, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  372,  342 

Erickson  v.  ^Milwaukee,  etc.,  Rv. 

Co.,  93  Mich.  414,  S.  C.  53  N.  W. 

Rep.  393,  790 

Erie  v.  Knapp,  29  Pa.  St.  173,  471 

Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller,  52  Conn. 

444,  S.  C.  52  Am.  R.  607,  738 

Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Ramsey,  45  N.  Y. 

637,  282 

Erlangerv.  Avego,24La.Ann.77,  1191 
Errissman   v.   Errissman,  25  111. 

136,  695 

Erwin  v.  Bulla,  29  Ind.  95,  813,  815 
Erwin  v.  Fulk,  94  Ind.  235,  479,  484 
Erwin  v.  Hamilton,  50  How.  Pr. 

32,  1123 

Erwin  v.  Heath,  50  ^liss.  795,  462 
Erwin  v.  Lowry,  7  How.   (U.  S.) 

172,  315 

Erwin  v.  Scotten,  40  Ind.  389,  1194 
Erwin  v.  Voorhees,  26  Barb.  127,  541 
Eschbach  v.  Hurtt,  47  Md.  61,  714 
Eschbach  v.  Pitts,  6  Md.  71,  366 

Eshelman  v.  Chicago,  B.  &  O.  R. 

R.  Co.,  67  la.  296,  S.  C.  25  N. 

W.  R.  251,  355,  642 

Eshelman  v.  Snyder,  82  Ind.  498, 

1199 
Eskridge  v.  Jones,  1  Smed.  &  M. 

(Mi.ss.)  595,  424,  428 

Eslava  v.  Lepretre,  21  Ala.  504, 

S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  266,  289 

Eslinger  v.  East,  100  Ind.  434, 

619,  623 
Eslow  V.  Mitchell,  26  Mich.  500,  502 
Essen  wine  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 

25  Weeklv  Law  Bulletin  396,  310 
Essex  v.  McPherson,  64  111.  349,  653 
Essig  V.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239,  S.  C, 

SfN.  E.  R.  1090,  275, 

299,  331,  426.  433,  444,  445,  450 
Estate  of  Aveline,  53  Cal.  259,  1161 
Estate  of  Bierlv.  81  Pa.  St.  419,  519 
Estate  of  Bovd.  25  Cal.  511,  173 

Estate  of  Cook,  77  Cal.  220,  S.  C. 

11  Am.  St.  R.  267,  184,  191,  1189 
Estate  of  Griffith,  84  Cal.  107,  S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  528,  314 


CIV 


TABLE    Oi^    CASES. 


{Beferences  are  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Estate  of  Jarrett,  42  Ohio  St.  199, 

189 
Estate  of  Jones,  27  Pa.  St.  336,  1190 
Estate  of  McCausland,  52  Cal.  568, 

519 
Estate  of  Newman, 75  Cal.213,S.  C. 

7  Am.St.R.146,  184,287,444,452,1188 
Estate  of  Page,  50  Cal.  40,  189,  718 
Estate  of  Paige,  57  Cal.  38,  1224 

Estate  of  Phillips,  48  Phila.  Leg. 

Inst.  232,  574 

Estate  of  Robinson,  6  INIich.  137,  456 
Estate  of  Schaeffner,  45  Wis.  614,  636 
Estate  of  Toomes,  54  Cal.  509,  1133 
Estate  of  Wardell.  57  Cal.  484,  291 
Estate  of  White,  37  Cal.  190,  218 

Estep  V.  Ai-mstrong,  69  Cal.  536,  638 
Estep  V.  Larsh,  16  Ind.  82,  576 

Estes  V.  Boothe,  20  Ark.  583,  539 

Estes  V.  Mitchell,  14  Allen  156,  143 
Estill  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  849,  534 

Eswin  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  96 

Mo.  260,  1149 

Etheridge  v.  W^oodley,  83  N.  Car. 

11  378,  609 

Etherige  v.  Hobbs,  77  Ga.  531,  696 
Ettingv.Bank,ll  Wheat. (U.S. )59,  537 
Eudaly  v.  Eudaly,  37  Ind.  440,  1090 
Eudel  V.  Leibrock,33  Ohio  St.254,  465 
Eureka  Co.  v.  Bass,  81  Ala.  200,  546 
Evans,  In  re,  22  L.  T.  501,  573 

Evans  v.  Adams,  3  Green  (N.  J.) 

373,  342 

Evans  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  122 

Ind.  362,  546 

Evans  v.  Boiling,  5  Ala.  550,  618 

Evans  v.  Cheek,  3  Hayw.(Tenn.) 

49  586 

EvaAs  V.  Cleveland,  72  N.Y.  486,  378 
Evans  v.  Cogan,  2  P.  Wms.  450,  581 
Evans  v.  De  Lay,  81  Cal.  103,  782 

Evans  v.  Eaton,  7  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

356,  520 

Evans  v.  Evans,  2  Cold.  (Tenn.) 

143,  201 

Evans  v.  Evans,  1  Ves.  Jr.  96,  477 
Evans  v.  Gallowav,  20  Ind.  479,  377 
Evans  v.Hettich,  7  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

4.53  513,  519,  520 

Evans  v.  lies,  7  Ohio  St.  2,33,  604,  61 5 
Evans  v.  Ives,  15  Phila. (Pa.)  635,  590 
Evans  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  88  Mich.  442,  1058 

Evans  v.  Phillips,  4  Wheat.  (U.S.) 

73,  1049 

Evans  v.  Saul,  8  Mart.  N.  S.(La.) 

247,  464 

Evans  V.  Stettni-sch,  149  U.S.  605, 
S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  931,     1169,  1212 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Evans  V.Smith,  5  T.B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

363,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  74,  804 

Evans  v.  State,  56  Ind.  459,  232 

Evans  v.  State,  58  Ind.  587,  1158 

Evans  v.  State,  67  Ind.  68,    1164, 1165 
Evans  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  63  la. 

204,  1158 

Evans  v.  Town  of  Trenton,    112 

Mo.  390,  S.  C.  20  S.W.Rep.  614,    820 
Evans  v.  Young,  10  Col.  316,  S.C. 

3  Am.  St.  R.  583,  319,  327 

Evans  v.  Yongue,  8  Rich.  113,        375 
Evans  v.  White,  53  Ind.  1,  1211 

Evanston  v.  Gunn,  99  U.  S.  660, 

557,  712,  1128 
Evansville  v.  Blend,  118  Ind.  426,  258 
Evansville   v.    Martin,    103    Ind. 

206  1162,  1163 

Evansville  v.  Wilter,  86  Ind.  414,    822 
Evansville,  etc.  v.  State,  118  Ind. 

426,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  93,         121,  170 
Evansville,  etc.  v.  City  of  Evans- 
-^.ville,  15  Ind.  395,        134,165,323,427 
Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Frank,  3 
Ind.  App.  96,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 
419,  1224 

Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hawkins, 

111  Ind.  549,  619 

Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Maddux, 
134  Ind.  571,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R. 
345,  1162 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.R.Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 85  Ind.  494,  801 
Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Page,  23 

Ind.  525,  35 

Evansville  &  Richmond  R.  R.  Co. 

v.  Fettig,  130  Ind.  61,  712 

Evansville  &  T.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Crist,  116  Ind.  446,  S.  C.  2  L.R. 
A. 450,  1063 

Evansville  &  T.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Taft,  2  Ind.  App.  237,  530 

Evarts  v.  Middlebury,  53Vt.626,    811 
Eve  V.  St.  Louis,  91  Ind.  457,  376 

Everdell  v.  Sheyboygan,  etc.,  Co. 

41  Wis.  395,  475 

Everett  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

59  la.  243,  697 

Everett  v.  Tidball   (Neb.),  52  N. 

W.  R.  816,  512 

Evison  V.  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  45  Minn.  370,  S.  C. 
IIL.  R.  A.434,  545 

Ewing  V.  Cook,  85  Tenn.  332,   S. 

C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  765,  354 

Ewing  V.  Duncan,  81  Tex.  230,  S. 

C.  16  S.  W.  R.  1000,  487 

Ewing  V.  Orr  Ewing,  L.  R.  9  App. 
Cas.  34,  S.C.  Brett's  L.  C.  in  Eq. 
234,  283 


TABLE    OF    CARES. 


CV 


[References  are  to  Pafjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Ewing  V.  Filley,  48  Pa.  St.  884,       491 
Evving  V.  French,  1  Blackf.  170,      G20 
Ewing  V.   North   W^rsailles  Tp., 

146  Pa.  St.  309,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R. 

338,  534 

Ewing  V.  Peck,  2(5  Ala.  413,  550 

Ewing  V.  White,  8  Utah  250,  S.  C. 

30  Pac.  R.  984,  518 


Ex  parte  Amos,  51  Ala.  57,  226 

Ex  parte  Arras.  78  Cal.  304,  S.  C. 

20  Pac.  R.  083,  342 

Ex  parte  Baily,  2  Cow.(N.Y.}  479,  539 
Ex  parte  Hassett,  2Cowen458,  1241 
Ex  parte  Beard,  41  Tex.  234,  189 

Ex   parte    Bennett,   44    Cal.    84, 

139,  155, 242 
Ex  parte  Bergman,  3  Wyo.  396,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  914.        "  221 

Ex  parte  Biggs,  64  N.  C.  202,  137 

Ex  parte  15ollman,4  Cranch  75,  307 
Ex  parte  Bond,  9  S.  Car.  80,  S.  C. 

30  Am.  R.  20,  341 

Ex  parte  Bradstreet,  4  Pet.  102,  1242 
Ex  parte  Bridges,  2  Woods  428,  308 
Ex  parte  Cage,  45  Cal.  248,  178 

Ex  parte  Chambers,  10  Mo.  App. 

240,  630 

Ex  parte  Chase,  43  Ala.  303,  630 

Ex  parte  Cheatham,  1  Eng.  (Ark.) 

531,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  525,  430 

Ex  parte  Crane.  5  Pot.  190,  1242 

Ex  parte  Crouse,  4  Whart.  (Pa.)  9,  294 
Ex  parte  Cuddv,  131  U.  S.  280,  S. 

C.  9Siip.  Ct."R.  703,  318,528 

Ex  parte  Curtis,  3  Minn.  274,  635,  639 
Ex  parte  Davis,  95  Ala.  9,  S.  C.  11 

So.  R.  308.  329 

Ex  parte  Dickinson,  29  S.  Car.  453, 

S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  749,  302 

Ex  parte  Dickson,  64  Ala.  188,  178 
Ex  parte  E.lgington,  10  Nev.  215,  304 
Ex  parte  Enlmann,  88  Cal.  579,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  372,  342 

Ex  parte  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co., 

•129  U.  S.  206,  176 

Ex  parte  Fisk,  113  U.  S.  713,  256 

Ex  parte  Foster,  2  Story  131,  468 

Ex  parte  Cans,  17  Fed.'R.  471,  212 
Ex  parte  Gilison,  89  Ala.  174,  S.  C. 

7  So.  R.  833,  .304 

Ex  parte  Ginnochio.  30  Tex.  Ajip. 

584,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  82,  119 

Ex  parte  Gladhill,  8  Metcf.  168,  116 
Ex  parte  Gordan,  92  Cal.  478,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  154,  243 

Ex  parte  Griffiths,  118  Ind.  83, 

119,  212 
Ex  parte  Ilarker,  49  Cal.  469,  118 

Ex  parte  Henderson,  6  Fla.  279, 

124,  178,  187,  607,  1242 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  no:^-1244.'\ 
Ex  parte  Ilodgcs.  59  Ala.  305,  631 

Ex  parte  Ireland.  .38  Tex.  344,  155 

Ex  parte  Jaynes,  70  Cal.  638,  414 

Ex  parte  .JolinHon,  15  Neb.  512,  S. 

C.  19  N.  W.  R.  594,  214 

Ex  parte  Jones,  8  Cow.  123,  1225 

Ex  parte  .Jones,  61  Ala.  399,  189 

Ex  parte  Juneman,  28  Tex.  App. 

486,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  783,  154 

Ex  parte  Landsdown,  5  Fast  38,  393 
Ex  parte  Lange,  18  Wall.  163, 

118,  243,  255,  280,  340 
Ex    parte     Logan    Branch,    etc., 

Bank,  1  Ohio  St.  432,  256 

Ex  parte  .Maney,  .38  Tex.  344,  142 

Ex  parte  Martin,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 

Div.  212,  298 

Ex  parte  Martin,  46  Fed.  R.  482,  342 
Ex  parte  McCardle,  7  Wall.  506,  253 
Ex  parte  McGehan,  22  Ohio   St. 

442,  154 

Ex  parte  McGill,  6  Tex.  App.  498,  341 
Ex  parte  McGrew,  40  Tex.  472,  304 
Ex  parte  31iller,  82  Cal.  454,  S.  C. 

22  Pac.  R.  1113,  126 

Ex  parte  Mountfort,  15  Yes.  445,  495 
Ex  parte  Nelson,  62  Ala.  376,  1239 
Ex  parte  Page,  49  Mo.  291,  243,  342 
Ex  parte  Parker,  131  U.  S.  221,  257 
Ex  parte  Parks,  93  U.  S.  18,  256 

Ex  i)arte  Phillips,  57  :\Iiss.  357,  336 
Ex  parte  Randolph,  2  Brock.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  447,  115 

Ex  parte  Raye,  63  Cal.  491,  184 

Ex  parte  Redd,  73  Ala.  548,  1241 

Ex   parte  Richardson   (Ala.),  11 

S.  R.  316,  177 

Ex  parte  Roberts,  9  Nev.  44,  142, 155 
Ex  parte  Robinson,  19  Wall.  505, 

136,  505 
Ex  parte  Sibbald,  12  Pet.  488,  .347 

Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  371,  256 
Ex  parte  Sims,  44  Ala.  248,  1182 

Ex  parte  Slocomb,  Richards,  etc., 

9  Ark.  (4  En2.)  375,  183 

Ex  parte  Stone,3  Cow.  (N.Y.)380,  1048 
Ex  parte  Story,  12  Pet.  339, 

1128,  1242 
Ex  parte  Stout,  5  Col.  509,  145 

Ex  parte  Strahl,  16  Iowa  369,  214 

Ex  jiarte  Strang,  21  Ohio  St.  610,  216 
Ex  parte  Strong,  20  Pick.  484,  162 
Ex  parte  Terry,  128  U.  S.  289, 

136,  255 
Ex  parte  Vermilyea,  6  Cow.   (N. 

Y.)  555,  "  662 

Ex  jiarte  Walker,  25  Ala.  81,  494 

Ex  parte  Walls,  73  Ind.  95,  1108 

Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  193, 

127,  132,  32a 


CVl 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


{^Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Ex  parte  AVhitfield,  2  Atk.  315,       495 
Ex  parte  AVilliains,  4  Yerg.  579,      214 
Ex  parte  Wreford,  40  Ala.  378,        138 
Ex   parte  Yarbrough,  120  U.  S. 

651,  243 

Exley  V.  Berrvhill,  36  Minn.  117, 

S.  C.  30  N.  W.  K.  136,  1203 

Express  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  99 

U.  S.  191,  410 

Ever  V.  Beck,  70  Mich.  179,  291 

Evre's  Executor  v.  Fennimore,  2 

Penning  932,  579 

Eyser  v.  Weissgerber,  2  la.  463,       559 


F 


Faerber  v.  T.  B.   Scott  Lumber 

Co.  (Wis.),  56  N.  W.  Rep.  745,     821 
Faber  v.  Bruner,  13  Mo.  541,  176 

Eager  v.  State,  22  Neb.  332,  S.  C. 

35  N.  W.  R.  195  219 

Fagg  V.  Clements,'  16  Cai.  389,  158 
Fagundes  v.  Cent.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

97  Cal.  97,  S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  824, 

1042,  1043 
Fahnestock    v.   Gilham,    77    111. 

637,  346 

Fahnestock  v.  State,  23  Ind.  231,  657 
Fahs  V.  Darling,  82  111.  142,  299 

Fain  v.  Goodwin,  35  Ark.  109,  1118 
Fain     v.    Headerick,    4    Coldw. 

(Tenn.),327,  600 

Fairbanks     v.     Amoskeag     Nat. 

Bank,  32  Fed.  R.  572,  1189 

Fairbanks  v.  Kerr,  70  Pa.  St.  86, 

S.  C.  10  Am.  R.  664,  534 

Fairbanks  v.  Irwin,  15  Col.  366,  676 
Fairbanks    v.    Wood,    17   Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  329,  379 

Fairbanks  v.  Woodhouse,  6  Cal. 

433,  545 

Fairbanks,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 

etc.,  Co.,  54  Fed.  R.  420,  613 

Fairchild  v.  Bascomb,  35  Vt.  398, 

795,  797 
Fairfax     Forest,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Chambers,  75  Md.  604,  S.  C.  23 

Atl.  R.  1024,  610 

Fairfield  v.  Irvine,  2  Russ.  149,  496 
Fales  V.  Goodhue,  25  Me.  423,  154 
Fall  V.  Hazelrigg,  45  Ind.  576,  S. 

C.  15  Am.  Rep.  278,  403 

Falley  v.  GribHng,  128  Ind.  110,  1211 
Fallin  v.  State,  86  Ala,  13,  S.  C.  5 

So.  R.  423,  634 

Falls  Wire  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Broderick, 

12  Mo.  App.  378,  559 

Faloon    v.    Simshauser,    130    111. 

649,  371 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Falvey  v.  Jones,  80  Ga.  130,  423 

Fancher  v.  Stearns,  61  Vt.  616,  S. 

C.  18  Atl.  R.  455,  235 

Fanning  v.  Fly,  2  Cold.  (Tenn.) 

486  1238 

Fanning  v.  Krapfl,  61  la.  417,  430 

Fannon  v.  Plummer,  30  Mo.  App. 

25,  152,  153 

Fanshawe  v.  Tracy,  4  Biss,  490,  480 
Fant   v.    Miller,   17  Gratt.  (Va.) 

187,  514 

Paris  V.  Hoberg,  134  Ind.  269,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  1028,  548,  1053 

Farland  v.  Wood,  35  W.  Va.  458, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  140,  488 

Farley  v.  Cammann,  43  Mo.  App. 

168,  187 

Farley  v.  State,  57  Ind.  331,  798,  1077 
Farman  v.  Lauman,  73  Ind.  568,  820 
Farmer  v.  National,   etc.,    Assn. 

138  N.  Y.  265,  608 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Bayliss,  41  Mo. 

274,  1170 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Beaston,  7  Gill. 

&  J.  421,  197,  198 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Butterfield,  100 

Ind. 229,  110, 1130 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Cowan,  2  Abb. 

Ct.  App.  Dec.  88,  721 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  King,  57  Pa.  St. 

202,  32 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Troy  City  Bank, 

1  Doug.  (Mich.)  457,  582 

Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Berchard, 

32  Neb.  785,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 

762,  622 

Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.Lonergan, 

21  Mo.  46,  414,506 

Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Young,  36 

la.  44,  812 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Groff,  87  Pa. 

St.  124,  180,  738 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.   Kennedy, 

etc.,  Co.,  127  Ind.  250,  1146 

Farmers'    High    Line    Canal    v. 

South worth7  13  Col.  Ill,  S.  C. 

21  Pac.  R.  1028,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A. 

767,  528 

Farmer's  Loan,  etc., Co.,  Ex  parte, 

129  U.  S.  206,  176 

Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peti- 
tioner, 129  U.  S.  206,  1181 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Postal 

Tel.  Co.,  55  Conn.  334,  S.  C.  3 

Am.  St.  R.  53,  281 

Farmers'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Fonda,  65 

Mich.  533,  452 

Farnam  v.  Brooks,  9  Pick.  212,  367 
Farnham  v.  Campbell,  10  Paige, 

598,  499 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


evil 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Farnhaia  v.  Pierce,  141  Mass.  203,  294 
Farnsworth    v.  Coots,   40    Mich. 

117,  1087 

Farniim  v.  Ewell,  59  Vt.  327,  S.C. 

10  Atl.  R.  527,  551 

Farnum   v.    Plienix    Ins.  Co.,   83 

Cal.  246,  S.  C.  2  Lewis'  Am.  R. 

R.  &  Corp.  R.  72,  589 

Farwell   v.  Cliambers,   02   Mich. 

310,  472 

Farwell  v.  Fox,  18  Mich.  10(),  33 

Farwell  v.  Myers,  59  Mich.  179,  354 
Farwell  v.  Tillson,  7(5  Me.  227,  538 
Farr  v.  Cate,  58  N.  II.  307,  1048 

Farr  v.  Ladd,  37  Vt.  150,  158 

Farr  v.  Newman,  4  T.  R.  621,  197 

Farrand  V.  Bentley,  0  Mich.  280,  1138 
Farrar  v.  Farrar,  75  la.  125,  290 

Farrell  v.  Brennan,  32  Mo.  328,  009 
Farrell  v.  Friedlander,  03  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  254,  552 

Farrell  v.  State,  7  Ind.  345,  254,  1004 
Farrell  v.  Waterburv,  etc.,  Co.,  00 

Conn.  239,  "  1100 

Farrelly  v.Woodfolk,19  How.288,  1187 
Farrington  v.  Hodgdon,  119  Mass. 

453,  507 

Farris  v.  Walter,  2  Col.  App.  450, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  231,  319 

Fassinow  v.  State,  89  Ind.  235, 

229,  234 
Fasnacht  v.  Stehn,  53  Barb.  050, 

1131 
Fathman  v.  Tumiltv,  34  Mo.  App. 

230,  1121 

Fatt  V.  Fatt,  78  Wis.  633,  S.  C.  48 

N.  W.  R.  52,  637,  639,  640,  1241 

Faiight  V.  Faught,  98  Ind.  470,  269 
Faulkner    v.    Bailey,   123    Mass. 

588,  '  384 

Faulkner  v.  Territory  (N.  Mex.), 

30  Pac.  R.  905,        "  621,  623 

Faulks  V.  Heard,  31  Ala.  516,  473 

Faurote  v.  State,  123  Ind.  6,  1141 

Faust  V.  City  of   Huntington,  91 

Ind.  493,  392 

Faust  V.  Faust,  31  S.  Car.  576,  443 

Faville  v.  Shehan,  68  la.  241,  S. 

C.  26  N.  W.  R.  131,  665 

Favis  V.  Fish,  1   Greene    (Iowa) 

406,  139 

Fawcett  v.  State,  71  Ind.  590, 

232,  638,  639 
Fay  V.  Wenzell,  8Cush.  315,  191 

Fayette    City   Borough   v.    Hug- 
gins.  112  Pa.  St.  1,  S.  C.  4  Atl. 

R.  927,  1172 

Feai'ey  v.    Cummings,   41    jMich. 

376,"  ^  473 

Fearing  y.  Erwin,  55  N.  Y.  480,     1139 


l-fJO-J,  r^/.  JI,pp.  603-1244.'] 
Fearl  v.  Ilanna,  129  Pa.  St.  588, 

S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  550,  555 

Fears  v.  Albea,  09  Tex.  437,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  St.  R.  78,  1101 

Feay  v.  DeCanip,  15  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

227,  1034 

Fechheimer    v.    Washington,   77 

Ind.  300,  217 

Feder  v.  Field,  117  Ind.  386, 

71,  110,254,  301,478 
Fee  V.  Big  Sand  Iron  Co.,  13  Ohio 

St.  503,  604 

Fee  y.  Moore,  74  Ind.  319, 

198,  407,  468 
Feeley's  Case,  12  Cush.  598,  342 

Feeney  y.  3Iazelin,  87  Ind.  226,  1161 
Feeter  v.  Heath,  11  Wend.  479,  394 
Feibleman  v.  Edmonds,  09  Tex. 

334,  S.  C.  0  S.  W.  R.  417,  454 

Feighley  y.  Feighley,  7  Md.  537,  498 
Fchring  y.    Swinefurd,  33    Wis. 

550,  1203 

Felch  y.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  9,  284 

FeUx  y.  Patrick,  145  U.  S.  317,  373 
Felix  y.  Scharnweber,  125  U.  S. 

54,  304,  820 

Fell  y.  Bennett,  110  Pa.  St.  181,  370 
Fellenzer  y.  Van  Valzah,  95  Ind. 

128,  1229 

Feller  v.  Clark,  36  Minn.  338,  S. 

C.  31  N.  W.  R.  175,  448 

Fellows  y.  Heermans,  1  Abb.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  7,  494 

Fellows  y.  Heermans,  13  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  S.)  1,  195,  492 

Fellows  y.  Miller,  8  Blackf.(Ind.) 

231,  466 

F'ellows  y.  Tait,  14  Wis.  156,  1240 

Pels  V.  Raymond,  139  Mass.  98,  514 
Felt  y.  Cleghorn,  2  Col.  App.  4,  S. 

C.  29  Pac.  R.  813,  179 

Fenderson  y.  Owen,  54  iNIe.  372,  538 
Fenelon  y.  Butts,  49  AVis.  342,  S. 

C.  5  N.  W.  R.  784,  235 

Fenton  y.  Alsip,  79  Cal.  402,  S.  C. 

21  Pac.  R.  839,  390 

Fenton  v.  Emblers,  3  Burr.  1278,  360 
Fenton  y.  Harred,  17  Pa.  St.  158,  346 
Fenton  y.  Liyingstone,  3  Macqu. 

497,  292 

Fennimore  y.  Childs,  1  Halst.(N. 

J.)  386,  579,  594 

Fern  y. West  Jersey  Ferry  Co.,  143 

Pa.  St.  122.  S.  C."l3  L.R.A.366,     513 
Ferguson  v.  Chastant,  35  La.  Ann. 

485,  183 

Ferguson  y.  Clifford,  37  N.H.  86,  545 
Ferguson  v.  Crittenden  Countv.  6 

Ark.  479,  "        235 

Ferguson  y.  Davis  Co.,  51  la.  220,    036 


CVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Page!:,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Ferguson  v.  Crawford,  70  N.  Y. 

Ferguson  v.  Dunn,  28  Ind.  58, 
Ferguson  v.  Fisk,  28  Conn.  501, __ 
Ferguson  v.  Hubbell,  97  N.Y.50/, 

iSo,  7oJ 
Ferguson  v.  Hosier,  58  Ind.  438,  1068 
Ferguson  v.  Kays,  21  N.  J.L.431,  173 
Ferguson  v.Landram,  1  Bush.548, 
Ferguson  v.  Malion,  11  Ad.  &  Ell. 

179, 
Ferguson  v.Rafferty,6L.R.A.33, 
Ferguson  v.  Rutherford,  7   Nev. 

385,  ,    ^^   179 

Ferguson  v.  State,  49  Ind.  33, 
Ferguson  v.  State,  90  Ind.  38, 
Ferguson  v.  Teel,  82  Va.  690, 
Ferrall  v.  Bradford,  2  Fla.  508, 

C.  50  Am.  Dec.  293, 
Ferren  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  143  Mass.  197,  S.  C.  9  N 

R.  608, 
Ferrier,  In  re,  103  111.  367,  b 

42  Am.  R.  10, 
Ferris  v.  Coover,  10  Cal.  589, 
Ferris  v.  Ferris,  25  Vt.  100, 


606 
362 

485 


343 

242 
502 

,  783 
820 
392 
318 

1195 
R. 

,E. 
547 

,C. 

294 
533 

463,  470 


198 
389 

'l068 


482 
5()5 
155 

485 
668 


497 

545 

,  447 

675 

452 

1094 


Ferris  v.  Walter,  2  Col.  App.  450, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  231,  1198 

Ferry  v.  Bank,  15  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.) 

445,  ,     „^ 

Fertich  v.  Miehener,  111  Ind.  4/2, 

S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  605, 
Fetes  V.  Volmer,8  N.Y.  Supp.294, 
Fetters  v.  Bank,  34  Ind.  251, 
Feustman  v.  Gott,  65  Mich.  592, 
Fick  V.  Mulholland,  48  Wis.  413, 
Finance  Co.  of  Pa.  v.  Charleston, 

etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  436,  194 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gill,  etc.,  Co., 

25  Fed.  R.  737,  337 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hammock, 

(  \rk  ),  15  S.  W.  R.  360,  1231,  1233 
Field,  Matter  of.  131  N.  Y.  184,  447 
Field  V.  Bland,  81  N.  Y.  239,  354 

Field  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Mo. 

Ann.  600,  1135,  1139 

Field  V.  Crawford,  34  N.  E.  R.  481,  531 
Fieldv.  Holland, 6Cranch8,  201,  1128 
Field V. Holzman, 93 Ind. 205,  478, 1 1 76 
Field  V.  Malone,  102  Ind.  251,  299,  473 
Field  V.  McVickar,  9  .Johns.  130,  314 
Field  V.  Nickerson,  13  Mass.  131,  553 
Field  V.  People,  2  Scam.  79,  203 

Field  V. Proprietors, 1  Cush.  (Mass.) 

11,  605 

Field  V.  Ripley,  20How.Pr.{N.Y.) 

26  496 

Field  V.  United  States,  9  Pet.  182,    1133 
Fielden  v.  People,  128  111.  595,  S. 
C.  21  N.  E.  R.  584,  1239 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Fieldhouse  v.  Croft,  4  East.  510, 
Fields  V.  Baum,  35  Mo.  App.  511, 
Fields  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 

80  Mo.  203, 
Fields    V.  AValker,   23   Ala.    155, 

248,  454,  609 
Fifteenth  Av.,  In  re,  54  Cal.  179,  1203 
Fifth  Avenue  Bank  v.  Webber,  27 

Abb.  N.C.I,  1218 

Fifthmongers  v.  East  India  Co.,  1 

Dickens  163, 
Filbv  V.  Miller,  25  Pa.  St.  264, 
Filley  v.  Codv,  4  Col.  109, 
Filley  v.  Fassett,  44  Mo.  68,  S.  C. 

8  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.S.)  402, 
Pillion  V.  State,  5  Neb.  351, 
Fillmore  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

2  Wyom.  Ter.  94,  795- 
Finch  v.Bergins,89Ind.360,  1070 
Finch  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  46 

Minn.  250,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  915,  716- 
Finch  V.  Galligher,  12  N.  Y.  Sup. 

487,  457 

Findly  v.  Ray,  5  Jones,  125,  584r 

Fineux  v.  Hovenden,  Cro.  Eliz. 

664,  262 

Fink  V.  Bruihl,47Mo.  173,     1046, 1048 
Fink  V.  Fink,  8  la.  313,  576 

Finkbone's  Appeal,  86  Pa.  St.  368,  360 
Finley  v.  Funk, 35  Kan.  668,  S.  C. 

12  Pac.  Rep.  15,  572 

Finley  v.  Hunt,  56  Miss.  221,  915 

Finnagan  v.   Manchester,  12  la. 

521,  1192 

Finnell  v.  So.  Kan.  R.  R.  Co.,  33 

Fed.  R.  427,  373 

Finneran  v.  Leonard.  7  Allen  54, 

320,  327 
Finnev  v.  Gleason,  5  Wend.  393,    389 
Fire  Ins.  Ass'n  v.  Wickham,  141 
U.  S.  564,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 
84, 
Firebaugh  v.  Stone,  36  Mo.  Ill, 
Firestone  v.   Firestone,    78  Ind 

534, 
Firestone  v.  Her-shberger,  121  Ind. 

201, 
Firgel  v.  State,  85  Ind.  580, 
First  Congregational    Society  v. 

Trustees,  23  Pick.  148, 
First  Mass.  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Field, 

3  Mass.  201,  S.  C.  3  Am.Dec.l24, 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Armstrong,  101 

Ind.  244, 
First  National  Bank  v.  Balcom, 

35  Conn.  351, 
First  National  Bank  v.  Bartlett,  8 

Neb.  319,  1221 

First  National  Bank  v.  Colter,  61 

Ind.  153,  1161 


567 
475 

1195 

640 
229 

152 

367 

470 

314 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CIX 


53/ 


155 


437 
Gage,   79 

195,  495 
Gary,   14 

1203 
Geneseo, 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
First  National  Bank  v.  Dana,  79 

N.  Y.  108, 
First  National  Bank  v.   Daly,  34 

111.  App.  173, 
First  National  Bank  v.  Dwight,  85 

Mich.  509, 
First  National  I'.ank   v 

Ill.'_'07, 
First  National  Bank  v 

So.  Car.  571, 
First  National  Bank  v 

etc.,  Co.(Kan.),  32  Pac.  R.902,    319 
First  National  Bank  v.  Hurford, 

29  la.  579,  1067 

First  National  Bank  v.  Lo\very,3G 
Neb.  290,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  5()8, 

1070,  107G 
First  National  Bank   v.   Peck,   8 

Kan.  660,  1092 

First  National   Bank  v.  Railroad 

Co.,  45  la.  120,  471 

Fields  V.  AValker,  23  Ala.  155,         454 
First  National  Bank  v.  Redick,110 
U.  S.  224,  S.  C.  3   Sup.  Ct.  R. 
640,  1189 

First  National  Bank  v.  Rogers,  13 

Minn.  407,  492 

First  National  Bank  v.  Scott,  36 
Neb.  607,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R. 
987,  1081 

First  National  Bank  v.  Smith,  36 

Neb.  199,  S.C.  54  N.W.R.  254,    1211 
First  National  Bank  y.    Western 
Union,  etc.,   Co.,   30  Ohio   St. 
555,  1199 

First  National  Bank  v.  Williams, 

126  Ind.  423,  1166,  1167 

First  National  Bank  of  Oakland  v. 
Wolff,  79  Cal.  69,  S.  C.  21  Pac. 
R.551,  1190 

First  Street,  In  re,  58  Mich.  641, 

S.  C.  26N.  W.  R.  159,  652 

First  Unitarian  Society  v.  Faulk- 
ner, 91  U.  S.  415,  706 
Fischer  v.  Coons,  26  Neb.  400,  S. 

C.  42  N.  W.  R.  417,  1212 

Fischer  v.  Holmes,  123  Ind.  525,     427 
Fischer  v.   Neil,   6    Fed.    R.   89, 

1128,  1206 
Fischli  y.  Fischli,  1  Blackf.  360, 

S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  251,        1176,1185 
Fish   y.  Emerson,  44   N.  Y.  376, 

183,  184,  1189 
Fish  V.  Smith,  12  Ind.  563,  1077 

Fish    y.   Weather^vax,   2   Johns. 

Cases  215,  257 

Fisher  y.  Ballard,  109  N.  Car.  574, 

S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  799,  307 

Fisher  v.  Bennehoff.  121  111.  426, 
S.  C.  13  N.  E.  R.  150,  541 


1-GO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  aO:i-I244.  ] 
Fisher  v.  Bassett,  9  Leigh.  119,  S. 

C.  33  Am.  Dec.  227,  2(>4,  314 

Fisher  v.  Cambridge,  133  N.  Y. 

527,  547 

Fisher  y.  Cockerell,  5  Pet.  248,  1222 
Fisher  y.  Collins,  25  Ark.  97,  434 

Fisher  y.  Conway,  21  Kan.  18,  S. 

C.  30  Am.  R.  4"l9,  698 

Fisher  y.  Fisher,  131  Ind.  462,  1228 
Fisher  y.  Fredericks,  .'io  Mo.  612,  456 
Fisher  v.  Hayes,  22  Blatchf.  505,  200 
Fisher  y.  Heryey,  6  Col.  16,  470 

Fisher  y.  :McGin,  1  Gray  1,  278 

Fisher  v.  National  Bank  of  Com- 
merce, 73  111.  34,  174 
Fisher  y.  Philadelphia,  4  Brews. 

(Pa.)  395,  646 

Fisher  y.  Purdue,  48  Ind.  323,  1139 
Fisher  y.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  502, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  90.  558 

Fisher  y.  Steyens,  16  111.  397,  532 

Fisher  y.  Towner,  14  Conn.  26,  590 
Fisher  y.  United  States,  1  Okla. 

252,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  195,  182 

Fisher  y.  Willard,  l.'J  Mass.  379,  517 
Fishmongers  Co.  y.  Robertson,  3 

Com.  B.  970,  189 

Fisk  y.  Baker,  47  Ind.  534,  1199 

Fisk  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  74  la. 

424,    S.    C.   46    N.    W.    R.   998, 

152,  1213 
Fisk,  Ex  parte,  113  U.  S.  713,  256 

Fisk    V.    Henarie,    14    Ore.    29, 

1170,  1194,  1205 
Fisk   y.  Norvel,  9  Tex.  13,  S.  C. 

58  Am.  Dec.  128,  335 

Fisk  y.  Stone,  6  Dak.  35,  413 

Fisk  y.  Tank,  12  Wis.  276,  S.  C. 

78  Am.  Dec.  737,  509 

Fitch   y.   Constantine   Hydraulic 

Co.,  44  Mich.  74,  584 

Fitch  y.  Deylin.  15  Barb.  47,  332 

Fitch  y.  Creighton,  24  How.  (U. 

S.)  159,  270 

Fitch  y.  Pinckard,  5  111.  69,  452 

Fitch  y.  AVoodruff  Iron  Works,  29 

Conn.  82,  556 

Fitchburg,    etc.,    Co.     y.    Grand 

Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Allen  552, 

214 
Fithian  y.  Monks,  43  Mo.  502,  341 
Fitzgerald  v.  Beers,  31  Mo.  App. 

356,  680 

Fitzgerald  v.   Cross,  30  Ohio  St. 

444,  333 

Fitzgerald  y.  Eyans,  53  Tex.  461,  332 
Fitzgerald  y.  Goff.  99  Ind.  28,  807 

Fitzgerald  y.  Gray,  59  Ind.  254,       477 
Fitzgerald  y.  Hart   (Tex.),  23  So. 
W.  R.  933,  1056 


ex 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Heferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  j^p 
Fitzgerald  v.  Hayward,  50    Mo. 

516,  178 

Fitzgerald  v.  Salentine,  10  Met. 

(Mass.)  436,  431 

Fitzgerald  v.  Williams,  148  Mass. 

462,  '799 

Fitzgerald  &  Mallorv  Const.  Co. 

V.  Fitzgerald,  137  U.  S-  98,  S.  C. 

11  Sup-^Ct.  R.  36,      442,  454,  458,  610 
Fitzhuuh  V.  Custer,  4  Tex.  391,  S. 

C.  SlAm.  Dec.  728,  235,  326 

Fitzhueh   V.   Texas,  etc.,  Co.,  81 

Tex.  306.  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  1078, 

1142,  1151 
Fitzpatrick  v.  New  Orleans,  27  La. 

Ann.  457,  423 

Fitzpatrick  v.  Papa,  89  Ind.  17,  707 
Fitspatrick  v.  Phelan's  Estate,  58 

Wis.  250,  362 

Flack  V.  Andrew,  86  Ala.  395, 

183  1192 
Flack  V.  Holm,  IJ.  &  W.  405,  '  477 
Fladland  v.  Delaplaine,  19  Wis. 

459,  449 

Flagg  V.  Puterbangh,  98  Cal.  134, 

S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  863,  1236 

Flagg  V.  Sloan,  16  Ind.  432,  488 

Flagg  v.Worcester,8Cush.  (Mass) 

69,  653 

Flagley  v.  Hubbard,  22  Cal.  34,  630 
Flake  v.  Carson,  33  111.  518,  613 

Flanagan  v.  Elton,  34  Neb.  355,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  R.  967,  1047 

Flanagan  v.  Kilcome,  58   N.  H. 

443,  566 

Flanagan  v.  Wilmington, 4  Houst. 

(Del a.)  548,  1055 

Flanagan  v.  Wood,  33  Vt.  332,  471 
Flanagin  v.  State,  25  Ark.  92,  520 

Flanders  v.  Colby,  28  N.  H.  34,  1059 
Flanigan  v.  Lampman,  12  Mich. 

58,  S.  C.  3  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.) 

183,  718 

Flatter  v.  McDermitt,  25  Ind.  326,  601 
Fleece  v.  Russell,  13  111.  31,  459 

Fleenor  v.  Driskill,  97  Ind.  27, 

1179,  1192 
Fleeson  v.  Savage,  etc.,  Co..  3  Nev. 

157,  654 

Fleetwood  v.  Dorsey  Machine  Co., 

95  Ind.  491,  1089 

Fleischner  v.  Kubli,  20  Ore.  328, 

S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  1086,  556 

Fleming  v.  Burnham,  100 N.Y.  1,  361 
Fleming  v.  Collins,  2  Del.  Ch.  230,  485 
Fleming    v.    State,    11    Ind.  234, 

623,  645,  653 
Flemming  v.  L.  D.  Latham  &  Co., 

48  Kan,  773,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R. 

166,  1079 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Fletcher  v.  Crosbie,  2  M.  &  Rob. 

417,  704 

Fletcher  v.  Gillan,  62  Miss.  8,  382 

Fletcher  v.  Holmes,  25  Ind.  458, 

245, 342,  459 
Fletcher  v.  Martin,  126  Ind.  55,  1147 
Fletcher  v.  Fallen,  70  Md.  205,  S. 

C.  16  Atl.  R.  887,  535 

Fletcher  v.  Spaulding,  9  Minn.  64,    373 
Fletcher  v.  State,  49  Ind.  124,  820 

Fletcher  v.  State,  90  Ga.  468,  S.  C. 

17  S.  E.  R.  101,  1072 

Fletcher  v.  Warring  (Ind.),  36  N. 

E.  R.  896,  1217 

Flint  River  Steamboat  Co.v. Foster, 

5  Ga.  194,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  248, 

444,  644 
Flint  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Rob- 
erts,  2  Fla.  102,  S.  C.  48  Am. 

Dec.  178,  355,  642,  644 

Flinn  v.  State,  24  Ind.  286,  542 

Flippin   V.  Knaffle,  2  Tenn.  Ch. 

243,  480 

Flood  V.  Joyner,  96  Ind.  459,         1167 
Flood  V.  McClure  (Idaho),  32  Pac. 

R.  254,  1119 

Flood  v.VanWormer,24N.Y. 460,    484 
Floral  Springs,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rives, 

14  Nev.  431,  178 

Florez  v.  Uhrig,  35  Mo.  517,  1200 

Florence  Machine  Co.  v.  Daggett, 

135  Mass.  582,  1088,  1091 

Florentine  v.  Barton,  2  Wall.  210, 

322,  324 
Flourney  v.  Healy,  31  Tex.  590,  1192 
Flourney  v.  Marx,  33  Tex.  786,  622 
Flournoy  v.  City  of  Jeffersonville, 

17  Ind.  169,  212 

Flournoy  v.  Lyon,  70  Ala.  308,        377 
Flowers  v.  Flowers  (Ga.),  18  S.  E. 

R. 1006,  1072 

Flowers  v.  Foreman,  23  How.  (U. 

S.)  132,  424 

Floyd  County   v.  Cheney,  57  la. 

160,  217 

Floyd  v.  Thomas,  108  N.  Car.  93, 

799,  802 
Floyd  Conntv,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Tomp- 
kins, 23  Ind.  348,  605 
Flyffe  V.  Beers,  18  la.  4,  543 
Flynn  v. Central,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Abb. 

N.  Cas.  .31,  310 

Flynn  v.  Daugherty,  91  Cal.  669, 

S.  C.  14L.  R.  A.230,  1042 

Flynn  v.  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co., 

6  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  308,  441 
Flynt  v.  Bodenhamer,  80  N.  Car. 

205,  524 

Focke  V.  Blum,  82  Tex.  436,  S.  C. 
17S.  W.  R.  770,  310 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXI 


{^References  are  to  Pay  as,  Vol.  I,  pj 
Fogarty  v.  State,  80  Ga.  450,  S.  C. 

5  S.  E.  R.  782,  179 

Fogg  V.  Gil)bs,  8  Baxt.  464,  319,  320 
Foley  V.  Connellv,9  la.  240,  453 

Foley  V.  People,  Breese  (111.)  57,  239 
Folger  V.  Columbian  Ins.  Co.,  99 

Mass.  267,  S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec. 

747,  471 

Folland  v.  Lamotte,  10  Sim.  486,  1210 
Follett  V.  Hall,  16  Ohio  111,  S.  C. 

47  Am.  Dec.  365,  138 

Folsom  V.  Pwans,  5  Minn.  418,  493 
Folsom  V.  Plumer,  43  N.  H.  469,  539 
Folsom  V.  Winch,  63  la.  477,  376 

Foltz  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  60 

Fed.  R.  31(),  1177 

Fontaine  v.   Hudson,  93  Mo.  62, 

S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  515,  182 

Fontaine  v.  Houston,  58  Ind.  316,  446 
Fonville  v.  State,  91  Ala.  39,  S.  C. 

8  So.  R.  688,  1215 

Foot  V.  Bentley,  44  N.  Y.  166,  503 
Foot  V.  Glover,  4  Blackf.  313,  1192 
Foot  V.  Morgan,  1  Hill  654,  209,  224 
Foot  V.  Stevens,  17  Wend.  483, 

128,  329 
Foote  V.  Lawrence,  1  Stew.  (Ala.) 

483,  .  643 
Foote  V.  Richmond,  42  Cal.  439,  333 
Foram  v.  Howard  Ben.  Ass'n,  4 

Pa.  St.  519,  588 

Forbes  v.  Bringe,  32  Neb.  757,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W\  R.  720,  456 

Forbes  v.  Darling,  94  Mich.  621, 

S.  C.  54  N.  AV.  R.  385,  429 

Forbes  v.  Halsev,  26  N.  Y.  53,  243 
Forbes  v.  Howard,  4  R.  I.  364,  1120 
Forbes  v.  Hyde,  31  Cal.  342,  446 

Forbes  v.  Porter,  23  Fla.  47,  S.  C. 

1  So.  R.  336,  254,  1183 

Forbes  v.  Tuckerman,  115  Mass. 

115,  1187 

Ford  V.  Adams,  54  Ark.  137,  437 

Ford  V.  Buchannan,  111  Pa.  St. 

31,  1139 

Ford  V.  Burleigh,  60  N.  H.  278,  597 
Ford  V.  Cameron,  19  Mo.    App. 

467,  1135,  1138.  1139 

Ford  V.  Delta,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R. 181,  439 

Ford  V.  Detroit,  etc.,  M.  Co.,  50 

Mich.  358,  470 

Ford  V.  Easley  (la.),  55  N.  W.  R. 

336,  '  1231 

Ford  V.  Holmes,  61  Ga.  419,  1167 

Ford  V.  Jones,  62  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

484,  804 
Ford  V.  Potts,  6  N.  J.  L.  388,  592 
Ford  V.  Tirrell,  9  Gray  401,  S.  C. 

69  Am.  Dec.  297,  394 


l-f!02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  C03-7244.'\ 
Kordyce  v.  Neal,  40  Midi.  705,  33 

F(jrenian  v.  Carter,  9  Kan.  674,  435 
Forester  v.  Guard,  Breese  74,  S.  C. 

12  Am.  Dec.  141,  1161 

Forgay  v.  Conrad,  6  How.  201,  1187 
Forqueron  v.  Van  Meter,  9  Ind. 

270,  576 

Forrest  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

47Fed.  R.  1,  455 

Forristal  v.  Milwaukee,  57  Wis. 

628,  407 

Forsaith,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hope  Mills 

Co.,  109  N.  Car.  576,  S.  C.  13  S. 

E.  R.  869,  480 

Forster  V.  Capewell,  1  IIilt.(N.Y.) 

47,  1200 

Forster  v.  Forster,  129  ^Iass.559,  117 
Forsyth  v.  Cothran,  61  Ga.  278,  823 
Forsvth  v.  Doolittle,  120  U.  S.  73, 

S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  408,  1074 

Forsyth  v.  Warren,  62  111.  68,  450 

Forsvth  v.  Wheeling,  19  W.  Ya. 

318,  366 

Forsvthe  v.  Kreuter,  100  Ind.  27,  427 
Fort"v.  Allen,  110  N.  Car.  183,  S. 

C.  14  S.  V,.  R.  685,  584 

Fort  V.  Battle,  13  Smedes  &  M. 

133,  582 

Fort  V.  Groves,  29  Md.  188,  487 

Fort  V.  :\Iilligan,  21  N.  Y.  S.  145,  433 
Fort  Dodge  v.  IMinneapolis,  etc., 

Co.  (la.),  54  N.  AV.  R.  243,  1220 

Fort  Scott,  AV.  &  AV.   Ry.  Co.  v. 

Fortney,  51   Kan.  287,  S.  C.  32 

Pac.  R.  904,  1081 

Fort  Scott  V.  Hickman,  112  U.  S. 

150,  S.  C.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  56,  384 

Fort  Scott,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holman,  45 

Kan.  167,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  585,     396 
Fort  Scott,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sweeney, 

15  Kan.  244,  1055 

Fort  Smith  v.  McKibbin,  41  Ark. 

45,  366 

Fort  AVayne  v.  Coombs,  107  Ind. 

75,  516,  716,  741 

Fort  AA^ivne,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mellett, 

92  Ind".  535,  197 

Fort  AA'ayne  v.  Patterson,  3  Ind. 

App.  34,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  167,     549 
Fort  Worth  v.  Johnson,  84  Tex. 

137,  S.  C.  19  S.  AV.  R.  361,  549 

Fortune  V.  Killebrew    (Tex.),  21 

S.  AV.  R.  9S6,  581 

Fortune  v.  Trainor,  19  N.Y.  Supp. 

598,  657 

Forward  V.  Harris,30  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

338,  506 

Foster's  Case.  2  Storv  131,  470 

Foster  v.  Abbott,  1  Mass.  234,  619 
Foster  v.  Berg,  104  Pa.  St.  324,        537 


CXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Foster  v.  Berry,  14  R.  I.  (301,  456 

Foster  v.  Brown,  65  Ind.  234,  410 

Foster  v.  Charles,  7  Bing.  105,  407 
Foster  v.  Dickerson,  64  Vt.233,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  253,  778 

Foster,  Ex  parte,  2  Story  131,  468 

Foster  v.  Eraser,  6  ]\Iou"treal  Law 

R.  (Q.  B.)  405,  402 

Foss  V.  Foss,  58  N.  H.  283,  543 

Foster  v.  Havnes,88  Ga.240,  S.  C. 

14  S.  E.  R."570,  1161 

Foster  v.Markland,37  Kan.  32,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  452,  454 

Fossett  V.  McMahan,  74  Tex.  546,  334 
Foster  v.  Metts,  55  Miss.  77,  S.  C. 

30  Am.  R.  504,  567 

Foster  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

115  Mo.  165,  S.  C.  21  S.'W.  R. 

916,  1091 

Fosdick  V.  Schall,  99  U.  S.  235,  1181 
Foster  v.  Smith,  52  Conn.  449,  382 
Foster  v.  State,  70  Miss.  755,  S.C. 

12  So.  R.  822,  815 

Foster  v.  State,  41  Mo.  61,  256 

Foster  v.  Wells,  4  Tex.  101,  1040 

Foster's  Will,  34  Mich.  21,  35 

Foster  v.  Worthing,  146  Mass.  607,  801 
Fouche  V.  Harrison,  78  Ga.  359,  301 
Fouhvv.  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.  (Pa.), 

2  Atl.  R.  536,  1053 

Fountain  v.  Ware,  56  Ala.  5.58,  512 
Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v.Heuschen,52 

Mo.  207,  525 

Foust  V.  Commonwealth,  33  Pa.  St. 

338,  652 

Foust  V.  Hastings,  66  la.  522,  576 

Fowle  V.  Alexandria,  11   Wheat. 

320,  1025, 1108 

Fowle  V.  Bigelow,  10  Mass.  379,  538 
Fowler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  18 

W.  Va.  579,  1024 

Fowler  v.  Bebee,  9  Mass.  231 ,  436,  503 
Fowler  V.  Bowery  Sav.  Bank,  113 

N.  Y.  450,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  145, 

S.  C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  479,       .354,  1206 
Fowler  v.  Brooks,  64  N.  H.  423,  S. 

C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  425,  218 

Fowler  v.  Byers,  16  Ark.  196,  224 

Fowler  v.Citv  of  Superior  (Wis.), 

54  N.  W.  R.  800,  483 

Fowler  v.  Deakman,  84  HI.  130,  407 
Fowler  v.  Dovie,  16  Ta.  534,  1192 

Fowler  V.  Eddv,  10  Pa.  St.  117,  S. 

C.  1  Atl.  R.  789,  113,  1214 

Fowler  v.  Fowler,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  152, 

S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  669,  287 

Fowler  v.  Jackson,  86  Ga.  337,  S. 

C.  12S.  E.  R.  811,  574,584,601 

Fowler  v.  Lewis,  .36  W.  Va.  112, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  447,  428 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Fowler  v.  McClelland,  5  Ark.  188,    198 
Fowler  v.  McComb,  2  Root  388,      1035 
Fowler  v.  Simpson,  79  Tex.  611,      452 
Fowler  V.  Smith,  1  Rob.  (La.), 448, 

1198 
Fowler  v.  Trust  Co.,  12  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

1,  S.  C.  141  U.  S.  408,  188 

Fowler  v.  Wallace,  131  Ind.  347,  S. 

C.  31  N.  E.  R.  53,  1071 

Fowler  v.  Whiteman,  2  Ohio  St. 

270,  327,  451 
Fox  V.  Conway  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  53 

Me.  107,  173 

Fox  V.  Hazelton,  10  Pick.  (Mass.) 

275,  590 

Fox  V.  Hoyt,  12  Conn.  491,  S.  C. 

31  Am.  Dec.  760,  158 

Fox  V.  Meacham,  6  Neb.  530,  1162, 1163 
Fox  V.  Minor,  32  Cal.  Ill,  344 

Fox  V.  Spring  Lake  Iron  Co.,  89 

Mich.  387,  S.  C.  50  N .  W.  R.  872, 

1056,  1208 
Fox  V.  State,  9  Ga.  373,  618 

Fox  V.  State,  5  How.  410,  308 

Fox  V.  Young,  22  Mo.  App.  386,  1165 
France  v.  Lucy,  Ry.  &  M.  341,  506 
Francis  v.  Ames,  14  Ind.  251,  576, 596 
Francis  v.  Deming,  59  Conn.  108, 

S.  C.  21  Atl.R.  1006,  402 

Francis  v.  Edwards,    77  N.  Car. 

271,  1046 
Francis  v.  Hall,  13  Tex.  193,  335 
Francis  v.   Kansas  City,  etc.,   R. 

R.  Co.,  110  Mo.  387,  S.  C.  19  S. 

W.  R.  935,  548,  549 

Francis  v.  Ocean  Ins.  Co.,  6  Cow. 

(N.  Y.)  404,  545 

Francis  v.  Wells,  4  Col.  274,  155 

Franco,     etc.,    Co.    v.    Chaptive 

(Tex.),3S.  W.  R.  31,  1237 

Francois  v.  State,  20  Ala.  83,  1171 
Frank  v.  Manny,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

92,  ■  506 

Frank  v.  Traylor,  130  Ind.  145,  S. 

C.  16  L.  R.  Anno.  115,  59 

Frankel  v.  Wolf,  27  N.  Y.  Supp. 

328,  7  Misc.  R.  190,  1045 

Frakes  v.  Elliott,  102  Ind.  47,  371 

Frankfurth  v.  Anderson,  61  Wis. 

107,  320 

Franklin  Bank  v.  Bachelder,  23 

Me.  60,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  601, 

468,  470 
Franklin  v.   Dutton,  79  Cal.  605, 

S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  964,  305 

Franklin  v.  Harter,  127  Ind.  446,  525 
Franklin  Ins.  Co.    v.    McCrea,  4 

Greene  (la.)  229,  301 

Franklin,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Pratt,   101 

Mass.  359,  591 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXIU 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Franklin  V.  Satterfield  (Del.),  19 

Atl.  K.  «»8,  259 

Franklin  Ins.  Co.  v.  Updegraff,  43 

Pa.  St.  350,  557 

Franklin  v.   Underhill,   2  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  374,  635 

Franklin  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  West, 

8  Watts  ct  S.  (Pa.)  350,  4G8 

Franklin  v.  Wicgins,  88  Ga.   169, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.'^H.   120,  1117 

Frankoviz  v.  Smith,  :)4  Minn.403,  361 
Frantz  v.  Brown,    17  Serg.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  287,  49 

Fraser  v.  Freelon,  53  Cal.  644,  144 
Fraser  v.  Jennison,  42  Mich.  206,  664 
Fraser  V.  Willey,  2  Fla.  116,  153 

Frazee  v.  Beattie,  26  S.  Car.  348, 

1129 
Frazee  v.  McChord,  1  Ind.  224, 

361,  392,  393 
Frazer  v.  Ross,  66  Ind.  1,  1097 

Frazier  v.  Fortenberry,  4  Ark.  162,  638 
Frazier  v.  Miles,  10  Neb.  109,   S. 

C.  4  N.  W.  R.  930,  446 

Frazier  V.  Swain,  36  N..T.Eq.l56,  201 
Frazier    v.   Williams,    15    Minn. 

288,  529 

Fredenheim  v.  Rohr,  87  Va.  764, 

S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  193,  195,  496 

Frederick    v.     Kinzer,    17    Neb. 

366,  1066 

Fredericks  v.  Judah,  73  Cal.  604, 

823, 1124 
Frederickton    Boom  Co.   v.   Mc- 

Pherson,  2  Hann.8,  658 

Fredlander    v.    Pugh,    43    Miss. 

Ill,  1158 

Freedom  v.  Norris,  128  Ind.  377, 

1097,  1106.  1147 
Free]  v.  Market  St.,  etc.,  Co.,  97 

Cal.  40,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  730,        800 
Freeland  v.  Stillman  (Kan.),  30 

Pac.  R.  235,  1219 

Freeman   v.  Alderson,  119  U.  S. 

185.  271,  428 

Freeman  v.  Roland,  14  R.  I.  39,  365 
Freeman  v.  Rrehm  (Ind.),  31  N. 

E.  R.  545,  565 

Freeman  v.  Dempsev,  41  111.  App. 

554,  '  820 

Freeman  v.  Gaither,  76  Ga.  741,  142 
Freeman    v.    Hawkins,    77    Tex. 

498,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  364,  448 

Freeman  v.   Howe,  24  How.   (U. 

S.)  450,  196 

Freeman    v.    Karr,   34    111.    App. 

646,  1439 

Freeman  v.  Loftus,  6  Jones  Law 

(N.  Car.)  524,  .31 

H 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Freeman  v.  Paul,  105  Ind.  451,        431 
Freeman  v.  People,  4  Denio  (N. 

Y.)  9,  S.  C.  47   Am.  Dec.  216, 

656,  667 
Freeman    v.   Thomson,   50    Hun 

340,  ^  304 

Freeman  v.  Tranah,  12  Com.  B. 

406,  189 

Freeman  v.  Warren,  3  Barb.  Ch. 

(i-So,  1200 

Freeman  v.  Weeks,  45  Mich.  335,  347 
Freeman  v.  Wilson.  16  R.  I.  524, 

S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  921,  411 

Freeney  v.  Mazelin,  87  Ind.  226,  1167 
Freer  v.  White,  91  Mich.  74,  S.  C. 

51  N.  W.  R.  807,  612 

Freese  v.  Swayze,  26  N.  J.  Eq. 

437,  1216 

Freeson  v.  Rissell,  63  N.  Y.  168,  403 
Freligh  v.  Ames,  31  Mo.  2-53,  178 

Freleigh  v.  State,  8  Mo.  606,  630 

Fremont  v.  Fulton,  103  Ind.  393,  465 
Fremont,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marley,  13 

Am.  St.  R.  482,  738 

French  v.  Cresswell,  13  Ore.  418, 

S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  62,  1113 

French  v.  Gifford,  30  la.  148,  195,  496 
French  v.  Hall,  119  U.  S.  152,  S. 

C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  170,  704 

French    v.    Hanchett,    12     Pick. 

(Mass.)  15,  1116 

French  v.  Hay,  22  Wall.  231,  302 

French  v.  Hoyt,  6  N.  H.  370,  274 

French  v.  Maguire,  55  How.  Pr. 

471,  487 

French  v.  Merrill,  6  N.  H.  465,  807 
French  v.  Miller,  2  Ohio  St.  44,  804 
French  v.  Moseley,  1  Litt.  (Ky.) 

247,  592 

French  v.  Pease.  10  Kan.  51,  183 

French  v.  Sale,  63  :\Iiss.  386,  695 

French  v.  Smith,  24  Am.  Dec.  622, 

1039 
French  v.  Stanley,  21  Me.  512,  1044 
French  v.  Venneman,  14  Ind.  282, 

515 
French   v.    Wilkinson.  93   Mich. 

.322,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  530,  810 

Freshour  v.  Logansport,  etc.,  Co., 

104  Ind.  463,  181,1210,1223 

Frets   V.   Frets,  1   Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

335,  585,  586 

Fretz  V.  Stover,  22  Wall.  198,  1128 
Frevert  v.  Swift.  19  Nev.  363,  S. 

C. 11  Pac.  R.  273,  217 

Friar  v.   State,  3   How.    (Miss.) 

422,  161 

Frick  V.  Algeier,  87  Ind.  255,  550 

Fricker  v.  Peters,  21  Fla.  254,  195 


CXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Fridge  v.  State,  3  Gill.  &  J.  (Md.)  | 

103,  S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec.  463,  400 

Friederv.B.  Goodman  Co.  (Ala.), 

13  So.  K.  420,  1228 

Friedlander  v.  Pollock,  5   Coldw. 

(Tenn.)  490,  465 

Friedman   v.    Myers,    14    N.    Y. 

Supp.  142,  697 

-Friend  v.  Friend,  64  Md.  321,  536 

Friendly  v.  Lee,  20  Ore.  202,  S.  C. 
*     25  Pac.  R.  396,  1172 

Frier  v.  Jackson,  8  Johns.  495, 

1225,  1226 
Frierson  v.  Travis,  39  Ala.  150,  443 
Friery  v.  People,  2  Keyes  (N.  Y.) 

424,  666 

Fries  v.  Brugler,  7  Halst.  (N.  J.) 

79,  S.  C.  21  Am.  Dec.  52,  780 

Fries  v.  Fries,  34  111.  App.  142,       344 
Frink  v.  Coe,  4  G.  Greene   (la.) 

555,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  141,  399 

Frink  v.  Frink,  43  N.  H.  508,  S. 

C.  80  Am.  Dec.  189,  191 

Frink  v.  Stewart,  94  N.  Car.  484, 

350,  484 
Fripp  V.  Chard,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Eng. 
'    Law  and  Eq.  53,  194 

"Frisk  V.  Reigelman,  75  Wis.  499, 
^     S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1117,     447, 449,  452 
Fritts  V.  Camp,  94  Cal.  393,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  867,  304 

Fritz  V.  Barnes,  6  Neb.  435,  1213 

•Fritz  V.  Clark,  80  Ind.  591,  1030 

JFritz  V.  Muck,  62  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)  70,  588 

Frois  V.  May  field,  31  Tex.  366,       1048 
Froman  v.   Patterson,    10   Mont. 

107,  S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  692,  1168 

Frost  V.  Angier,  127  Mass.  212,         35 
Frost  V.  Beekman,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

285,  34 

Frost  V.  Brisbin,  19  Wend.   11,  S. 

C.  32  Am.  Dec.  423,  312 

Frost  V.  Gibson,  59  Ga.  600,  1042 

Frost  V.  Lawler,  34  Mich.  235,         605 
>  Frost  V.  Paine,  12  Me.  Ill,  434 

-Frost  V.  Smith,  7  Bosw.  108,  389 

Frost  V.  Spaulding,  19  Pick.  445,       35 
Fry  V.  Bennett,  3  Bosw.  200,   S. 
',     C.  28  N.  Y.  324,  225,  823 

Try  V.  State,  81  Ga.  645,  S.  C.  8  S. 

E.  R.  308,  in 

Frye  v.  Bank,  11  111.  367,  803 

Frye  v.  Calhoun  County,  14  111. 

132,  605 

Fudge  V.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  .31  Kan.  146,  1163 

Fudichar  v.  Guardian,  etc.,  Co., 

62  N.  Y.  392,  408,  593 

Fuel  Co.  V.  Tuck,  53  Cal.  304,  463 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Fugate  V.  Carter,  6  Mo.  267,  632 

Fugua  V.  Carriel,  1  Miner  170,  S. 

C.  12  Am.  Dec.  46,  191 

Fulford  V.   Converse,   54   N.   H. 

543,  1046 

FuUen  v.  Coss,  82  Ind.  548,  1068 

Fuller  V.  Bean,  34  N.  H.  290,  559, 560 
Fuller  V.  Bryan,  20  Pa.  St.  144,  464 
Fuller    V.    City    of    Jackson,    92 

Mich.  197,   S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R. 

1075,  740 

Fuller  V.  Fox,  9  Am.  St.  R.  27,  740 
Fulham  v.  Howe,  62  Vt.  386,  S.  C. 

20  Atl.  Rep.  101,  543 

Fuller  v.  Nelson,  35  Minn.  213,  S. 

C.  28N.  W.  R.  511,  1190 

Fuller  V.  Ry.  Co.,  31  la.  211,  1118 
Fuller  V.  Ruby,  10  Gray  285,  1229 

Fuller  V.  State,19Tex.  App.  380,  1074 
Fuller  V.  State,  97  Ala.  27,  S.  C. 

12  So.  R.  392,  1063 

Fuller  V.  Stebbin,  49  la.  376,  186 

Fuller  V.  Trevor,  8  S.  &  R.  520,  1136 
Fuller  v.Wheelock,  10  Pick.  135,  579 
FuUerton  v.  Bank  of  the  United 

States,  1  Pet.  604,  173 

Fullerton    v.    Kelhher,    48    Mo. 

542,  1191 

Fulmore  v.  McGeorge,  91  Cal.  611, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  Rep.  92,  584 

Fulton  v.  Cummings,  132  Ind.  453, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  949,  656 

Fulton  County  v.  Amorous,  89  Ga. 

614,  S.  C.  16S.  E.  R.201,  652 

Fulton  County  v.  Phillips,  91  Ga. 

65,  S.  C.  16'S.  E.  R.  260,  1124 

Fultz  V.  Wycoff,  25  Ind.  321,  1211 

Fulweilerv.  St.  Louis,  61  Mo.  479,  654 
Fulwider  v.  Ingels,  87   Ind.  414, 

1069,  1070 
Funk  V.  Ely,  45  Pa.  St.  444,  656 

Funk  V.  Rentchler  (Ind.) ,  33  N.  E. 

R.  364,  528 

Funke  v.  Cone,  65  Mich.  581,  795 

Funsten  v.  Fox,  51  Kan.  682,  S.C. 

33  Pac.  R.  306,  1136 

Furber  v.  Chamberlain,  29  N.  H. 

405,  587 

Furbish  v.  Hall,  8  Greenl.  (Me.) 

315,  582,  595 

Furgeson  v.  Jones,  17  Ore.  204,  S. 

C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  808,  291 

Furlong  v.  Garrett,  44  Wis.  411 ,  1091 
Furnival  v.   Bogle,  4  Russ.  Rep. 

142,  614 

Furnival  v.  Stringer,  1  Bing.  N.C. 

68,  262 

Furrer  v.  Ferris,  145  U.  S.  132,  201 
Furst  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  R.  Co., 

72  N.  Y.  542,  720,  782 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXV 


\_Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 


G 


Gabe  v.  McGinnis,  TuS  Iml.  538,       540 
Gadwin  v.  Monds,  1()(>  N.  Car.  448, 

S.  C.  10  S.  E.  K.  1044,  455 

Gaff  V.  Green,  88  Ind.  122,  718 

Gafli  V.  Hutchinson,  ;W  Ind.  341,     1155 
Gage  V.  Arndt,  121  111.  491,  201 

Gage  V.  Clark,  22  Ind.  163,  248 

Gage  V.  Eich,  50  111.  207,  1188 

Gage  V.  Gates,  62  Mo.  412, 

1135,  1139,  1145 
Gage  V.  Goudy,  141  III.  215,  1186 

Gage  V.  Parker,  25  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

141,  541 

Gager  v.  Doe,  29  Ala.  341,  639 

Gager  V.  Edwards,  26  Ill.App.  487,  636 
Gaines   v.  Fuentis,  92   U.  S.    10, 

270,  274 

Gaines  v.  Harvin,  19  Ala.  491,        220 
Gaines  v.  Hot  Springs  Co.,  39  Ark. 

262,  366 

Gaines  v.  Saunders,  87  Mo.  557,      551 
Gaines  v.  White,  1  S.  Dak.  434,  S. 

C.  47  N.  W.  K.  524,     540,  1159,  1206 
Gains  v.  Barr,  60  Tex.  676,  220 

Gaitherv.Balle\v,4  Jones  (N.Car.) 

488,  S.  C.  69  Am.  Dec.  763,     198,471 
Gaither  v.  Wilmer,  71  Md.  361,  S. 

C.  5  L.  R.  A.  756,  1113 

Galbraith  v.  Littiech,  73  111.209,     158 
Galbraith  v.  Sidener,  28  Ind.  142, 

183,  1203 
Galdolfo  V.  Appleton,  40  N.Y.533,  799 
Gale  V.  Shillock  (Dak.),  29  N.  W. 

R.  661,  718 

Galena  &  S.  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Has- 

1am,  73  111.  494,  663 

Galena,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs, 

20  111.  478,  1067 
Gall  V.  Gall,  114  N.  Y.  109,  S.  C. 

21  N.  E.  R.  106,  541 
Gallagher  v.  Bell,  82  la.  722,  S.C. 

47  N.  W.  R.  897,  112 

Gallagher  v.  Southwood,  1  Kan. 

143,  1218,  1236 

Gallagher  v.  Williamson,  23  Cal. 

331,  1071 

Gallatian  v. Cunningham, 8  Cowan 

361,  317 

Gallatin  Turnpike  Co.  v.  State,  16 

Lea  (Tenn.)  36,  545 

Galliano  v.  Kilfoy,  94  Cal.  86,  S. 

C.  29  Pac.  K.  416,  1199 

Galligher  v.  Connell.  35  Neb.  517, 

8.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  383,  1068 

Galligher  v.  Ilullinesworth,  3  H. 

&  McH.  (Md.)  122,  383 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Galliher  v.  People,  82  111.  145,         915 
Gailimore  v.  Blankenship,99  Ind. 

390,  1212 

(Jalloway  V.Gibson,  51  Midi.  135,  577 
Galloway   v.  McKeithen,  5   Ired. 

12,  S.  C.  42  Am.  Dec.  153,  188,  192 
Galloway  v.State,29  I  nd.442,  174,  633 
Galloway  v.  Webb,  Hardin  (Ky.) 

318,  590 

Gallup  V.  Smith,  59  Conn.  354,  S. 

C.  12  L.  R.  A.  353,  S.  C.  22  Atl. 

R.  334,  214,  235 

Galpin   v.   Fishburne,  3  McCord 

22,  S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  614,  190 

Galpin  v.  Hard,  3  McCord  (S.Car.) 

394,  8.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  640,  393 

Galpin  v.  Page,  IS  Wall.  350, 

132,  280,  292,  315,  443 
Galusha  v.  Butterfield,  2  Scam. 

(111.)  227,  142,  148,  155 

Galveston  v.  Menard,  23  Tex.349,  366 
Galveston  Citv  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hook, 

41  111.  App."547,  442 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ma- 
tula,  79  Tex.  577,  S.  C.  15  S.  W. 

R.  573,  510 

Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Templeton, 

6  Tex.  C.  App.  — ,  S.  C.  25  S. 

W.  R.  135,  1027 

Galveston,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Thorns- 

berrv  (Tex.),  17  S.  W.  R.  .521,  667 
Galvin  v.  Bacon,  11  Me.  28,  S.  C. 

25  Am.  Dec.  258,  394 

Galvin  v.  State,  56  Ind.  61,  1222 

Galway  v.  State,  93  Ind.  161,  642 

Gamble  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  80 

Ga.595,  S.  C.  12  Am.  St.  R.  276,  317 
Gammell  v.  Skinner,  2  Gall.  (U. 

S.)  45,  394 

Gandolfo  v.  State,  11  Ohio  St.ll4,  177 
Gandv  v.  Jollv,  35  Neb.  711,  S.  C. 

52  N.  W.  R."376,  313 

Gans,  Ex  parte,  17  Fed.  R.  471,  212 
Garbutt  v.  Hanff,  15  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  189,  469 

Gardenhire  v.  Hinds,  1  Head  402,  290 
Gardiner  v.  Collector,  6  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  499,  545 

Gardiner   v.  Schmaelzle,  47  Cal. 

588,  1042 

Gardiner  v.  Thomas,    14    Johns. 

134,  310 

Gardiner  v.  Ti.sdale,  2  Wis.  153,  543 
Gardner  v.  Case,  111  Ind.  494,  1150 
Gardner  v.  Haynie.  42  111.  291,  1231 
Gardner  v.   Lanning,  3  N.  J.  L. 

231,  ^  653 

Gardner  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  R. 

Co.,  150  U.  S.  346,  S.  C.  14  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  140,  1056 


CXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{^Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Gardner  v.  Minea,  47  Minn.  295, 

S.  C.  50  N.  \V.  R.  199,  1124,  1125 
Gardner  v.  ]S'e\vl)nrgh,  2  Johns. 

Ch.  1(11,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  52H,  483 
Gardner  v.  Ogden,  22  N.Y.  332,  280 
Gardner  v.  Oliver  Lee  Bank,  11 

Barb.  558,  284 

Gardner  v.  Peckman,  13  R.  I.  102,  498 
Gardner  v.  People,  3  Scam.  83,  1171 
Gardner  v.  State,  55  N.  J.  L.  17,  S. 

C.  26  Atl.  R.  30,  1065 

Gardner  v.  State,  4  Ind.  633,  697 

Gardner  v.  State,  96  Ala.  12,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  402,  1075 

Gardner  v.  Stroever,  81  Cal.  148, 

S.  C.  6  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  90,  478 

Gardner  v.  Vidal,  6  Rand.  (Va.) 

106,  1114 

Gardner  v.  Walker,  3  Aust.  935,  430 
Gardner  v.Webber,17  Pick.  (Mass.) 

407,  377 

Gardom  v.  Woodward,   44  Kan. 

758,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  310,  739 
Garland  v.  Wholebau,  20  la.  271,  111 
Garland  Co. v. Gaines, 47  Ark. 558,  381 
Garlick  v.Citv  of  Pella,53  la.  646,  620 
Garlick  v.  Dunn,  42  Ala.  404,  142.  155 
Garlit  z.  v.  State,71  Md.  293,  S.  C. 

4L.  R.  A.601,  660 

Garman  v.  State,  66  Miss.  196,  696 
Garner  v.  Bridges,  38  Ala.  276,  520 
Garner  v.  Carroll,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

365,  161 

Garner  v.  Gordon,  41  Ind.  92,  290 

Garner  v.  Hanniloal,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  34  Mo.  235,  529 

Garner  v.  Lansford,  12  Smed.  & 

M.  (Miss.)  558,  5.37 

Garnet  v.  Rodgers,  52  Mo.  145,  346 
Gamier  v.  Renner,  51  Ind.  372,  386 
Garr  v.  Gomez,  9  Wend.  649,  573, 584 
Garrard  v.  Henry,  6  Rand.  (Va.) 

110,  1115 

Garrard  County  Court  v.  McKee, 

11  Bush  (Ky.)  234,  139 

Gar  red  v.  Macey,  10  Mo.  161,  573 

Garrett  v.  Bicklin,  78  la.  115,  S.  C. 

42  N.  W.  R.  621,  640 

Garrett  v.  Garrett,  12  Ind.  407,  618 
Garrigan  v.  Dickey,  1  Ind.  App. 

421,  206 

Gerrish  v.  Train,  3  Pick.  124,  1156 
Garrison  v.  People,  6  Neb.  274,  188 
Garrity  v.  Hamburger,  139  111.  499, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  743,  1225, 1230 

Garrow  v.  Nicolai  (Ore.),  32  Pac. 

R.  1036,  594,  597 

Garsed  v.  Beall,  92  U.  S.  684,  1127 
Garton  v.  Union  City  Nat.  Bank, 

34  Mich.  279,  1078 


.1-602,  Vol.11,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Gartside  Coal  Co.  v.  Maxwell,  20 

Fed. R.  187,  508,  510 

Gartside  Coal  Co.  v. Turk,  147  111. 

120,  S.  C.  35  N.  E.  R.  467,  1056 

Garver  v.  Kent,  70  Ind.  428,  409, 493 
Garver  v.  Lynde,  7  Mont.  108,  S. 

C. 14  Pac.  R.  697,  1041 

Garvin  v.  Daussman,  114  Ind.  429, 

425 
Garvin    v.    Luttrell,    10   Humph. 

(Tenn.)  16,  514 

Gas  Co.  V.  Wheeling,  8  W.  Va. 

320,  592, 1066 

Gasper  v.  Heimbach  (Minn.),  55 

N.  W.  R.  559,  722 

Gass  V.  Mason,  4  Sneed  497,  1128 

Gassett  v.  Grout,  4  Metcf.  486,  199 
Gates  V.  Bennett,  33  Ark.  475,  272 
Gates  V.  Bloom,  149  Pa.  St.  107,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  184,  458 

Gates  V.  Bushnell,  9  Conn.  530,  468 
Gates  V.  Hamilton,  12  la.  50,  619 

Gates  V.  Hughes,  44  Wis.  336,  21 

Gates  V.  People,  14  111.  433,  807 

Gates  V.  Salmon,  28  Cal.  320,  1179 
Gates  V.  Scott,  123  Ind.  459,  718,  1096 
Gates  V.  Treat,  25  Conn.  71,  1161 

Gates  V.  Wagner,  46  la.  355,  304 

Catling  V.  Boone,  101  N.  Car.  61, 

S.  C.  7  S.  E.  R.  477,  1096 

Gathng  v.  Newell,  9  Ind.  572, 

525  556 
Gatton  V.  Walker,  4  Eng.  (Ark.)' 

199,  1197 

Gavin  v.  Lowry,  7  S.  &  M.  24,  1160 
Gawtry  v.  Doane,  51  N.  Y.  84,  721 
Gay  V.  Grant,  101  N.  Car.  206,  443 
Gay  V.  Hebert,  44  La.  Ann.  301, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  775,  187,  1202 

Gay  V.  Minot,  3  Cush.  352,  217 

Gay  V.  Waltman,  89  Pa.  St.  453,  594 
Gavlord  v.  Gallagher,  20  N.  Y.  S. 

682,  1043 

Gaylord  v.  Karst,  13  N.  Y.  Supp. 

589,  819 

Gaylord    v.    Norton,    1.30    Mass. 

74,  599 

Gaynor  v.  Railroad  Co.,  100  Mass. 

208,  1056 

Gazzam  v.  Phillips,  20  How.  (U. 

S  )  372  251 

Gee"  v.  Pritchard,  2  Swanst.  402,  132 
Gee  v.  Vulver,  12  Ore.  228,  544 

Gee  v.  Warrick,  2  Hay.  (N.  Car.) 

354,  198 

Geisen  v.  Heiderich,  104  111.  537,  381 
Geiser  v.  Kershner,  4  Gill.  &  J. 

305,  S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  566,  566 

Geiser  v.  Northampton  Co.  (Pa.), 

11  Atl.  R.  507,  531 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXVll 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Geiss  V.  Franklin  Co.,  123  Ind. 

172,  1163 

Geller  v.  Hoyt,  7  How.  Pr.  265,  262 
Genella  v.   Relyea,  32  Cal.   159, 

368,  1203 
Generes   v.   Campbell,    11    Wall. 

193  1239 

Geneve  v.  Cole.  61  111.  397,  144 

Genobles  v.  West,  23  S.  Car.  154, 

320,  443 
Gentil  v.  Arnand,  38  How.  Pr.  94,  489 
Gentile  v.  State,  29  Ind.  409,  121,  170 
(Jentry  Co.  v.  Black,  32  Mo.  542,  1049 
George  v.  Johnson,  45  N.  II.  456,  598 
George  v.  Lousley,  8  East.  13,  594 
George  v.  Nichols,  32  ^le.  179,  508 
George  v.  Norris,  23  Ark.  121,  736 

George  v.  Pilcher,  28  Gratt.  (Va.) 

299,  707,  806 

George  v.  Taylor,  55  Tex.  97,  1163 
Georgia  v.  Gates,  62  Mo.  412,  1139 
Georgia,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  McGowan, 

59Ga.  811,  248 

Georgia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Luther,  90 

Ga.  249,  1224 

Georgia  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bissell,  9 

Paige  (N.  Y.)  225,  477 

Georgia  R.  R.V.Hart,  60  Ga.  550,  656 
Gerard  v.  Gerard  (Ind.),  34  N.  E. 

R.  442,  1163 

Gere  v.  Council  Bluffs  Ins.  Co., 

67  la.  272,  589 

Gere  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  38 

Hun  231,  490 

Gerhardt  v.  Swaty,  57  Wis.  24,  1093 
Gerity  v.  Haley,  29  W.  Va.  98,  1031 
Gerke  v.  California,  etc.,   Co.,  9 

Cal.  251,  S.  C.  70  Am.  Dec.  650,     547 
German  Am.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ether- 
ton,  25  Neb.  505,  588 
German   Bank  v.  Am.   Fire  Ins. 

Co.,  83  la.  491,  S.  C.  50  N.  W. 

R.  53,  S.  C.  32  Am.  St.   R.  316, 

471,  609,  611 
German    Ins.    Co.    v.    Fairbank 

(Neb.),  5  Lewis'  Am.   R.  R.  & 

Corp.  Cases  90,  385 

German  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gray,  2  Lewis' 

Am.  R.  R.  it  Corp.  Cases  459,      589 
German  Ins.  Co.  v.  Frederick.  58 

Fed.  R.  144,      1032,  1033,  1172,  1206 
German  Ins.  Co.  v.  Landram,  88 

Ky.  433,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  367.     230 
German  Ins.  Co.  v.   Smelker,  38 

Kan.  285,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  735,     1096 
German    Mut.    Fire    Ins.  Co.    v. 

Decker,  74  Wis.  556,  S.  C.  43  N. 

W.  R.  500,  457 

Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.   Hick, 

125 111.361, S.C.  SAm.St.  R.  384,   1147 


l-aO'J,  Vol.  11.  pp.  003-1244.'] 

Germania  F'ire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Klewer, 

129  111.  599,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R. 

489,  531 

Germania  Ins.  Co.  v.  Davenport 

(Pa.),  9  Atl.  R.  517,  550 

Germond  v.  Central  V.  R.  R.  Co., 

65  Vt.  126,  S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  401, 

1117,1122 
Germond  v.  People,  1  Hill  343,  139 
Gernon  v.  Boecaline,  2  Wash.  C. 

C.  130,  477 

(lerrish  v.  Black,  109  Mass.  474,  1187 
Gertz  v.   Fitchburg,  etc.,  Co.,  137 

.Mass.  77,  807 

Gesell's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.  238,  1179 
Getchell  v.  Chase,  124  Mass.  366,  475 
Gettvs  V.  Gettvs,  3  Lea  260,  S.  C. 

31  Am.  R.  637,  287 

Gholston  v.Gholston,31  Ga.  625,  1123 
Gibbens  v.  Pickett,  31  Fla.  147,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  17,  456 

Gibbon  v.  Bryan,  3  111.  App.  298,  470 
Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich.  344,  1056 
Gibbons  v.  Potter,  30  N.  J.  Eq. 

204,  910 

Gibbons  v.  Surber,  4  Blackf .  155,  1194 
Gibbons  v.   Wisconsin  Valley  R. 

R.  Co.,  62  Wis.  546,  '       1068 

Gibbs  v.  Dickson,  33  Ark.  107, 

181,  1223 
Gibbs  v.  Shaw,  17  Wis.  197,  274 

Gibney  v.  Crawford,  51  Ark.  34,  452 
Gibson's  Appeal.  154  Mass.  378, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  296,  294 

Gibson,  Ex  parte,  89  Ala.  174,  S. 

C.  7  So.  R.  833,  304 

Gibson  v.  Bailev,  9  N.  H.  168,  371 
Gibson  v.  Carreker,  82  Ga.  46,  S. 

C.  9  S.  E.  R.  124,  1157 

Gibson  v.  Chouteau,  13  AVall.  92,  139 
Gibson  v.  Chouteau,  45  Mo.  171, 

S.  C.  100  Am.  Dec.  366,  191 

Gibson  v.Fristoe.l  Call. (Va.)  62,  1104 
Gibson  v.  Ilatchett,  24  Ala.  201,  721 
Gibson  y.  Hunter,  2  H.  Bl.   187, 

1024,  1225 
Gibson  v.  Keves,  112  Ind.  568,  379 
Gibson  y.  Lacy.  87  Ind.  202,  719 

Gibson  v.  Manufacturers,  etc., Co., 

144  Mass.  81.  440,545 

Gibson  v.  Powell,  13  Miss.  712,  596 
Gibson  v.  Roll,  30  III.  172,  450 

Gibson  y.  State,  16  Fla.  291,  643 

Gibson   v.    Wvandotte,   20    Kan. 

156,  ■  654 

Gibson  v.  Zeibig,  24  Mo.  App.  65,  820 
GiiMings  v.  Giddings,  70  la.  486,  192 
Giddings  v.  Steele.  28  Tex.  7.32.  S. 

C.  91   Am.  Dec.  336,  314,  335 

Gidley  v.  Gidley,  65  N.  Y.  169,       596 


CXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


721 


477 
705 


635 
317 

552 
303 


[Refereyices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Giger  v.  Chicago  c»c  N.  W.  R.  R. 

Co.,80Ia.492,S.C.45N.W.R.906,  534 
Gilberson  v.  Miller,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Utah,  46,  S.  C.  5  Pac.  R.  699, 
Gilbert  v.  Cherrv,  57  Ga.  128, 
Gilbert  v.  Colt,  Hopk.  Ch.  (N.Y.) 

562, 
Gilbert  v.  Gilbert,  22  Ala.  529,  S. 

C.  58  Am.  Dec.  268, 
Gilbert  v.  Hall,  115  Ind.  549,  S.  C. 

18  N.  E.  R.  28,      603, 607,  1143, 1207 
Gilbert  v.  Morrison,  53  Hun  442, 

S.  C.  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  491,  1129 

Gilbert  v.  Sage,  5  Lans.  287,     785,  790 
Gilbert  v.  Shortsville,  etc.,  Co.,  15 

N.Y.  S.  316, 
Gilbert  v.  York,  111  N.  Y.  544, 
Gilbertson  v.  Fuller,  40  Minn.  413, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  Rep.  203, 
Gilbreath  v.  Bunce,  65  Mo.  350, 
Gilchrist,  etc.,  v.  Gough,  63  Ind. 

570,  1190 

Gilchrist  v.  Williams,  1  B.  Mon. 

133,  262 

Giles' V.  Baremoer,  5  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  545,  386 

Giles  V.  Caines,  3  Caines  (N.  Y.) 

107,  152,  1131 

Giles  V.  Cornfoot,  2  C.  &  K.  653,  31 
Giles  V.  Merritt,  59  N.  H.  325,  365 
Giles  V.  State,  6  Ga.  276,  1165 

Gilhooly  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Navi- 
gation Co.,  1  Daly  (N.Y.)  197,     553 
Giliam  v.  Reddick,  4  Ired.  368,       144 
Gill  V.  Caldwell,  1  HI.  53,  724 

Gill  V.  Jones,  57  Miss.  367,  1180 

Gill  V.  Rodgers,  37  Tex.  628, 
Gill  V.  Young,  88  N.  Car.  58, 
Gillanwaters  V.  Scott,  62  Tex.  670,   318 
Gilleland  v.  Schuvler,  9  Kan.  509,  338 
Gilleland  v.  State,  44  Tex.  356,      1124 
Gillespie  v.  See,  72  la.  345,  S.  C. 

33N.W.  R.  676,  147 

Gillespie  v.  Thomas,  23  Kan.  138,  275 
Gillet  V.  Maynard,  5  Johns.  85,  389 
Gillett  V.  Roberts,  57  N.  Y.  28,  394 
Gillett  V.  Wiley,  126  111.  310,  S.  C. 

9  Am.  St.  R.'587,  367 

Gilliland  v.  Sellars,  2  Ohio  St. 223, 

'  163,  259 
Gillingham  v.  Gillingham,  17  Pa, 

St.  302, 
Gillis  V.  Penna.  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  129, 
Gillitt  V.  Truax,  27  Minn.  528, 
Gillooley  v.  State,  58  Ind.  182, 
Gillv  V.'  Breckenridge,  2  Blackf. 

(Ind.)  100, 
Gilpatrick  V.  Biddeford,51  Me.l82,  531 
Gilpatrick  v.  Glidden,82  Me.  201, 
S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  166,  1183 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1 244. '\ 
Gilman  v.  Gilman,  52  Me.  165,  S. 

C.  83  Am.  Dec.  502,  312 

Gilman  v.  Gilman,  126  Mass.  26, 

S.  C.  30  Am.  R.  646,  606 

Gilman  v.  Hamilton,  16  111.  225,     500 

Lockwood,4  Wall.409,  285 


Gilman  v. 

Gilman  v.  Rives,10  Pet.  298,  1179, 1194 
Gilman  v 
Gilman  v 


436 
196 
301 
423 


1162 
1208 


336 

783 

1183 

394 

720 
450 

459 
512 


704 

112 

255 

119 
467 


383 
369 
341 
693 

466 


Stetson,  16  Me.  124, 
Williams,  7  Wis.  287, 
Gilman,  etc.  v.  Foote,  22  la.  560, 
Gilmer  v.  Bird,  15  Fla.  410, 
Gilmer  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  16 

Fed.  R.  708, 
Gilmer  v.  HJgley,  110  U.  S.  47, 
Gilmore  v.  Ham,  15  N.  Y.  391, 
Gilmore  v.  Newton,  9  Allen  171, 
Gilmore  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  104  Pa.  St.  275, 
Gilmore  v.  Sapp,  100  111.  297, 
Gilmour  v.  Ford  (Tex.),  19  S.  W. 

R.  442, 
Gilpins  V.  Consequa,  Pet.  C.  C.  85, 
Gilroy's   Appeal,    100   Pa.    St.   5, 

486,  489 
Gimbel  v.  Hufford,  46  Ind.  125,      509 
Ginn  v.  Collins,  43  Ind.  271, 
Ginn  v.  New  England,  etc.  Co., 
92  Ala.  135,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  388, 
Ginn  v.    Rogers,   4    Gilm.    (111.) 

131, 
Ginnochio,    Ex    parte,    30    Tex. 
App.  584,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  82, 
Ginsberg  v.  Pohl,  35  Md.  505, 
Girard  v.  Gettig,  2   Binn.   (Pa.) 

234  10*^ 

Girard  Bank  v.    Bank   of    Penn 

Tp.,  39  Pa.  St.  92,  360 

Girault    v.    Adams,    61     Md.    1, 

179,  707,  791 
Girdler  v.  Carter,  47  N.  H.  305, 

597,  598 
Gisborn  v.  Charter  Oak  Life  Ins. 
Co.,  142  U.  S.  326,  S.  C.  12  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  277,  362,  372 

1  Gish  V.  Gish,  7  Ind.  App.  104,  S. 
C.  34  N.  E.  R.  305,  1230 

Gist  V.   Drakely,   2   Gill.    (Md.) 

330,  173 

Gist  V.  Loring,  60  Mo.  487,     1066,  106/ 
Given  v.  Simpson,  5  Me.  303,  297 

Givens  v.  Bradley,  3  Bibb.  192,     1243 
Gladden  v.  Elkins,  2  Tyler  (Vt.) 

218, 
Gladhill,  Ex  parte,  8  Mete.  168, 
Gladwin  v.  Chilcote,  9  Dowl.  550, 
Glantz  v.  City  of  South  Bend,  106 

Ind.  .305,  1108 

Glascock  V.  Brandon,  35  W.  Va. 

84   S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  1102,  1046 

Glasgow  V.  Hobbs,  52  Ind.  239,     1088 


239 
116 
601 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXIX 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Glasgow  V.  Owen,  69  Tex.  167,  S. 

C.  6  S.  VV.  R.  527,  544,  552 

Glaspell  V.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  43 

Fed.  K.  900,  1159 

Glaspie  v.  Keator,  56  Fed.  Rep. 

208,  1208 

Glaas  V.  Gelvin,  80  Mo.  297,  560 

Glass  V.  The  Sloop  Betsey,  3  Dal- 
las 6,  145 
Glass  V.  Wiles  (Tex.),  14  S.  W. 

R.  225,  1145 

Glasscock    v.    Cent.   Pac.   R.   R. 

Co.,  73  Cal.  137,  1041 

Glasscock  v.  Rosengrant,  55  Ark. 

376,  S.  C.  18  S.  \V.  R.  379,  364 

Glaude  v.  Peat,  43  La.  Ann.  161, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  884,  287 

Glaze  V.  Whitley,  5  Ore.  164,  807 

Gleason  v.  Dodd,  4  Mete.  (Mass.) 

333,  606 

Glen  V.  Hodges,  9  Johns.  67,  310 

Glencoe  v.  People,  78  111.  382,  456 

Glenn    v.     Clore,     42     Ind.     60, 

514,  720,  798 
Glenn  v.  Dodge  (Dist.  of  Col.),  3 

Cent.  R.  283,  410 

Glenn  v.  Gill,  2  Md.  1,  471 

Glenn  v.  Gleason,  61  la.  28,  784 

Glenn  v.  Hunt  (Mo.),  25  S.  W.  R. 

181,  1078 

Glenn  v.  Fant,  134  U.  S.  .398,  1138 
Glenn  v.  State,  46  Ind.  368,  236 

Glenn  v.  Williams,  60  Md.  93,  374 
Glidden  v.  Pliill.rick,  56  Me.  222,  435 
Glidewell  v.  Daggy,  21  Ind.  95,  1182 
Globe  Works  v.  Wright,  106  Mass. 

207,  539 

Glover  v.  Holman,  3  Heisk.  519, 

321,  1198 
Gluck  V.  Cox,  90  Ala.  331,  S.  C.  8 

So.  R.  161,  1025,  1033 

Goar  V.  INIaranda,  57  Ind.  339,  316 
Godbold  V.  Bass,  12  Rich.  (S.  Car.) 

202,  199 

Goddard  v.  Bolster.  6  Me.  427,  S. 

C.  20  Am.  Dec.  320,  189 

Goddard  v.  Coffin,  Davis  (U.  S. 

Dist.  C.)  381,  1189 

Goddard  v.  Foster,  17  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  123,  559 

Goddard  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  R., 

57  Me.  202,  S.  C.  2  Am.  R.  39,  956 
Goddard  v.  Kine,  40  Minn.  164,  599 
Goddard  v.  Ordwav,  94  U.  S.  672,  255 
Goddard  v.  Ordwav,  101  U.  S.  745, 

185 
Goddard  v.  Parr.  24  L.  J.  R.  Ch. 

783,  780 

Goddard  v.  State,  12  Conn.  448,  643 
Godfrey  v.  Knodle,44Ill.  App.638,  591 


1-Gfr>y  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Godfrey  v. Valentine, 39  Minn.336,  452 
Godfrey  v.  Wade,  6  M(j(jre  488,       581 
Godfrey  v.  Wilson,  70  Ind.  50,      1138 
Goff  V.  Mc(iee,  128  Ind.  394,  S.  C. 

27  N.  K.  R.  754,  484 

Goff  V.  Pawtucket,  13  R.  I.  471,       368 
Goff  V.  Pope,  83  N.  C.  123,  33 

Goff  V.  Rogers,  71  Ind.  459,  540 

Goggsv.  lluntingtower,  12  Mees. 

ct  W.  503,  437 

Goings  V.  Chapman,  18  Ind.  194,     1167 
Goins  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

47  Mo.  A  pp.  173,  740 

Gold  V.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co., 

19  Vt.  478,  116 

Gold  Hunter,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holle- 
man,  2  Idaho  839,  S.  C.  27  Pac. 
R.  413,  195,  494 

Goldberg  v.  Dougherty,  7  J.  &  S. 

(N.  Y.)  189,  354 

Goldberry  v.  Utlev,  60  N.  Y.  427,     1214 
Golden  v.  Knowles,  120  Mass.  336, 

1035 
Golden  Gate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Joshua 
Hendv  Machine  Works,  82  Cal. 
184,  S'.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  45,  1114 

Goldenberg  v.   Blake,  145  Mass. 

354,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  171,  556 

Goldman  v.  State,  75  Md.  621,  S. 

C.  23  Atl.  R.  1097,  1071 

Goldmark  v.  Rosenfeld,   69  Wis. 

4f)9,  1183 

Goldsberry  v.  Stuteville,  3  Bibb. 

(Ky.)  345,  669 

Goldsby  v.  Robertson,  1  Blackf. 

(Ind.)  247,  1083,  1104,  1106,  1107 
Goldsbv  v.  State,  18  Ind.  147,  639,  640 
Goldsmith  v.  State    (Tex.),  22   S. 

W.  R.  405,  723 

Goldstein  v.  Stern,  9  N.  Y.  Supp. 

274,  •  402 

Goldtree  v.   ]\IcAllister,  68  Cal. 

93,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  207,  263 

Goltschalk  Co.  V.  Distilling,  etc., 

Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  681,  441 

Gomer  v.  Chaffe,  5  Col.  383, 

1162,  1163 
Gonder  v.  Esterbrook,  33  Pa.  374,  381 
Gooch  V.   McKnight,  10  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  229,  595 

Good  V.  Norley,  28  la.  188, 

243,  274,  293 
Goodall  V.  Coolev,  29  N.  H.  48,  593 
Goodbread  v.  Wells,  4  Dev.  &  B. 

(N.  Car.)  271,  1182 

Goodburn  v. Bowman, 9 Bing. 532.  1155 
Goode  V.  Gaines.  145  U.  S.  141,  S. 

C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  8.39,  377 

Goodell  V.  Bluff  Citv,  etc.,  Co.,  57 
Ark.  203,  S.  C.  21S.W.  R.  104,  1076 


cxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[jRefere7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Goodell  V.  Ravniond,  27  Vt.  241,   594 
Goodell  V.  Starr,  127  Ind.  198,        299 
Goodenow  v.  Snyder,  3  Greene 

(la.)  599,  374 

Goodfellow  V.  Landis,36  Mo. 168,   513 
Goodlieart    v.    Bowen,    2    Brad. 

(111.  App.)  578,  196 

Goodhue  v.  Churchman,  1  Barb. 

Ch.  596,  1200 

Goodhue  v.  People,  94  111.  37,  638 

Goodlett  V.  R.  R.  Co.,   122  U.  S. 

391,  S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1254, 

1050,  1054 
Goodman  v.    Kennedy,    10   Neb. 

270,  179,  791 
Goodman  V.  State,  1  Mt^igs  (Tenn.) 

195,  624 

Goodman  v.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482, 

S.  C.  68  Am.  Dec.  134,  713 

Goodman  v.  Whitcomb,  1  J.&W. 

591,  496 

Goodman  v.  Winter,  64  Ala.  410, 

241 ,  259,  269,  290 
Goodnow  V.  Stryker,  62  la.  221,  360 
Goodpaster  v.  Vorris,  8  la.  334, S. 

C.  74  Am.  Dec.  313,  677 

Goodrich  v.  Burdick,  26  Mich.  39,    667 
Goodrich    v.    Detroit,    12    Mich. 

279,  1138 

Goodrich  v.  Friedersdorff,  27  Ind. 

308,  675 

Goodrich  v.  Hanson,  33  111.  498,     512 
Goodrich  v.  Hulbert,   123  Mass. 

190,  S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  60,  590 

Goodrich  v.  Vanderbilt,  7  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  467,  628 

Goodrich   v.  Weston,   102   Mass. 

362,  S.  C.  3  Am.  R.  469,  502,  503 
Goodridge    v.    Dustin,    5    Mete. 

363,  598 
Goodsell  V.  Seeley,  46  Mich.  623, 

S.  C.  41  Am.  R.  183,  1120 

Goodsell  V.  Tavlor,  41  Minn.  207, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  873,  1076 

Goodtitle  v.  Otway,  7  Durn.  &  E. 

419,  950 

Goodwin  v.  Inhabitants,  12  Me. 

271 ,  325 
Goodwin  v.  Miller,  2  Munf.  42,  1187 
Goodwin  v.  Morris,  9  Ore.  322,  373 
Goodwin  v.  Sims,  86  Ala.  102,  S. 

C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  21, 

165,  323,  324,  329,  427 
Goodwin  v.  Smith,  72  Ind.  113, 

680,  1221,  1232 
Goodwin  v.  State,  96  Ind.  550, 

52,  741,  1064,  1070,  1074 
Goodwin  v.  Wertheimer,  99  N.  Y. 

149,  395 

Goodwine  v.  Crane,  41  Ind.  335,  1230 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Goodwine  v.  Miller,  32  Ind.  419, 

585,  1212- 
Goodwyn    v.   Goodwyn,    16   Ga. 

114,  383 

Goodwyn  v.  Goodwyn,  20  Ga.  600,  797 
Goodwyn  v.  Lloyd,  8  Port.  (Ala.) 

237,  512 

Goodyear  v.  Day,  2  Wall.  Jr.  (U. 

S.)  283,  485 

Goodyear  v.   Vosburg,   41  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  421,  511 

Gordan,  Ex  parte,  92  Cal.  478,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  154,  243 

Gordon  v.  Board,  44  Ind.  475,  206 
Gordon  v.  Jenney,  16  Mass.  465,  468 
Gorham  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co., 

113  Mo.  408,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R. 

1060,  1218 

Gordon  v.  Pitt,  3  la.  385,  1161 

Gordon  v.  Reynolds,  114  111.  118, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  455,  162 

Gordon  V.  Richmond,  83  Va.  436,  1064 
Gordon  v.  Small,  53  Md.  550,  372 

Gordon  v.  Spencer,  2  Blackf.  286,  177 
Gordon  v.  State,  48  N.  J.  L.  611, 

S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  476,  505 

Gordon  v.  Stockdale,  89  Ind.  210, 

365,  1103 
Gorham  v.    Summers,  25   Minn. 

81,  1238 

Gorman  v.   McFarland,  13  Tex. 

237,  1162 

Gormley  v.  Clark,  134  U.   S.  338, 

S.C.  10 Sup.  Ct.  R.  554,  478, 481, 1129 
Gorrill  v.  Whittier,  3  N.  H.  268,  218 
Gorrisson's  Succession, 15  La.  Ann. 

27,  314 

Gorry,  In  re,  48  Hun  29,  S.  C.  15 

N.  Y.  St.  R.  315,  164 

Gorton  v.  Hadsell,9  Cush.(Mass.) 

508,  524 

Gorwyn  v.  Anable,  48  Mo.  App. 

297,  1212,  1218 

Goshen  v.  England,  119  Ind.  368, 

S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  253,  654,655 

Goss  V.  Bowen,  104  Ind.  207,  402 

Goss  V.  Cardell,  53  Vt.  447,  453 

Goss  V.  Turner,  21  Vt.  437,  704 

Goss  V.  Withers,  2  Burr.  683,  1115 
Goszler  v.  Georgetown,  6  Wheat. 

593,  163 

Gott  V.  Brigham,  45  Mich.  424,  261 
Gottbehuet  v.  Hubachek,  36  Wis. 

515,  540 

Goudy  V.  Hall,  30  111.  109,  266 

Goudv  V.  Hall,  36  111.  313,   S.  C. 

87  Am.  Dec.  217,  429 

Goudy  V.  Werbe,  117  Ind.  154,  737 
Gould  V.  Banks,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

502,  S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  90,  404 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXl 


iBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Gould  V.  Crow,  57  Mo.  200,       287,  289 
Gould  V.  Day,  94  U.  S.  405, 

713,  721,  1215 
Gould  V.  Elgin  City  Banking  Co., 

3(J  111.  App.  390,  619 

Gould  V.  Evansville,  etc.,  Co.,  91 

U.S.  52»),  1178,1179 

(iould  V.  Haves,  19  Ala.  438,  299,337 
(iould  V.  Howe,  127  HI.  251,  182 

(.Tould  V.  James,  6  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

3(i9, 
Gould  V.  Loughran,  19  Neb.  392, 

S.  C.  27  N.  \V.  R.  397, 
Gould  V.  Norfolk  Lead  Co.,9Cush. 

(Mass,)  338,  S.  C.  57  Am.  Dec. 

50, 
( Jould  V.  Raymond,  59  N .  H.  260, 
Gould  V.  Spencer,  5  Paige,  (N.Y.) 

541, 
Gould  V.  Stafford,  91  Cal.  146, 
Gould  V.  Torrance,   19    How.   Pr. 

5(10, 
(n)ulding  V.  Clark,  34  N.  H.  148, 
(Toulding  V.  Swett,  13  Gray,  517, 
(lovenor  V.  Lassiter,  83  N.Car.  38, 
Gowdv  V.  Sanders,  88  Ky.  346,  S. 

C.  11  S.  W.  R.  82, 
Gower  v.  Howe,  20  Ind.  396, 
Gower  v.  Stevens,  19  Maine  92, 
Grabill  v.  Barr,  5  Pa.  St.  441,  S. 

C.  47  Am.  Dec.  418, 
Grable  v.  State,   2  Greene  (la.) 

559,  139,  148 

Grace  v.  McArthur,  76  Wis.  641,  1160 
Grace  v.  Mitchell,  31  Wis.  533,  154 
Grace  v.  Teague,  81  Me.  559,  S.  C. 

18  Atl.  R.  289,  215 

Gracie  v.  Palmer,  8  Wheat  699, 

333,  557 
Gradle  v.  Hoffman,  105  111.  147,  660 
Gradle  v.  Warner,  140  111.  123,  29 

N.  E.  R.  1118, 
Graduates,  Matter  of,  11  Abb.  Pr. 

301, 
(4radv  v.  Cassidv.  104  N.  Y.  147, 
(iraggv.  Hull,  41  Vt.  217, 
Graham,  In  re,  74  AVis.  450,  S.  C. 


520 
154 


801 
119 

432 

797 

299 

316 

33 

606 

423 
638 
468 

679 


404 

295 
536 
396 


R. 148,  341 

Bayne,  18  IIow.    (U. 

526,  1106 
Camman,   2   Caines, 

1225 
Dahlonega,  etc.,  Co., 

484 
676 

593 
601 

449 


43  N.  W 
Graham  v 

S.)  60, 
Graham    \ 

168, 
Graham  v 

71  Ga.  296. 
Graham  v.  Gautier,  21  Tex.  Ill, 
Graham  v.  Graliam,  9  Pa.  St.  254, 

S.  C.  49  Am.  Dec.  557. 
Graham  v.  (iraham,  12  Pa.  St.  128, 
Graham  v.  King,  50  Mo.  22,  S.  C. 

11  Am.  R.  401, 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-1244.] 
Graham  v.  Linn,  4  B.  Mon.  17,  S. 

C.  39  Am.  Dec.  493,  190 

Graham  v.  McRevnoIds,  90Tenn. 

673,  S.  C.  18  S.  "W.  R.  272,  7!tO,  806 
Graham  v.  Nowlin,  54  Ind.  389,  110 
(irahain  v.  Pc<.pl(-,  111  III.  253,  639 
Graham   v.   Pincknev,   7  Rob.  N. 

Y.  147,  '  ^     1210 

Graham  v.  Skinner,  4  Jones'  Eq. 

(N.  C.)  94,  1134 

Graham  v.  Spencer,  14  Fed.  R. 

603,  614 

Graham  Button  Co.  v.  Spielmann 

(N.  J.),  24  Atl.  R.  571,  494 

Graham  v.  State,  6(5  Ind.  386,  1108 
Graham  v.  State,  50  Ark.  161,  624 

Graham  v.  Stucken,  4  Blackf.  50,  476 
Graham  v.  Tate,  77  N.  C.  120,  1048 
Graham  v.  Woodall,  86  Ala.  313, 

S.  C.  5  So.  R.  687,  592,  601 

Gram  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  R. 

Co.,  1  N.  Dak.  252,  S.  C.  46  N. 

W.  R.  972,  534 

Gram  v.  Sampson,  4  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 

490,  664 

Grand  Rapids  v.  Perkins,  78  Mich. 

93,  S.  C.  43  N.  AV.  R.  1037,  1081 

Grand  Rapids  v.  AVhittlesey,  32 

Mich.  192,  1134 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Diller, 

10  Ind.  223,  736 

Grand  Rapids  &  I.   R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Ellison,  117  Ind.  234,  S.  C.  20 

N.  E.  R.  135,  526 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray, 

38  Mich.  461,  261 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jarvis, 

30  Mich.  308,  178 

Grand  Rai)ids  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

McAnnallv,  98  Ind.  412,  1095 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Sparrow,  1  L.  R.  A.  480,  643 

Grand  Trunk    Rv.   Co.  v.  Cum- 

minss.  106  U.  S.  700,  1052 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Ives,  144  U.  S.  408,  S.  C.  12  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  679,  S.  C.  6  Lewis'  Am. 

R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  130,  547,  548, 1072 
Grand  Trunk  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Nichol, 

18  Mich.  170.  1051 

Grandin  v.  LaBar.  2  N.  Dak.  206, 

S.  C.  50  N.  AA'.  R.  151.  195 

Grandin  v.  Le  Rov,  2  Raise.  509, 

239.261,1130 
Granger  v.  Batchelder,  54  A't.  248, 

S.  C.  41  Am.  R.  846,  206.  207,  564 
Granger  v.  Judge,  44  Mich.  384,  298 
Granger's    Admr.    v.    Granger,  6 

Ohio  35,  361 

Granite  Bank  v.  Treat,  18  Me.  340,   317 


cxxu 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


lUeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Granite  Mountain,  etc.,  Co. v.  Dur- 

fee,  11  Mont.  222,  S.  C.  27  Pac. 

R.  919,  226,  229 

Grant  v.  Baker,  12  Ore.  329,  1042 

Grant  v.  Campbell,  6  Dow  239,  412 
Grant  v.  Edwards,  90  N.  Car.  31,  488 
Grant  v.  Grant,  109  N.  Car.  710,  S. 

C.  14  S.  E.  R.  90,  180 

Grant  v.  Grant,  3  Russ.  598,  477 

Grant  v.  Grant,  12  S.  Car.  29,  S.  C. 

32  Am.  R.  506,  338 

Grant    v.    Holmes,   75    Mo.   109, 

239  233 

Grant  v.  Levan,  4  Pa.  St.  393,  518 

Grant  v.  Moore,  29  Cal.  644,  552 

Grant  v.  Phanix,  etc.,  Co.,  121  U. 

S.  105,  495 

Grant  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  106  U. 

S.  429,  1179,  1184,  1187 

Grant  v.  Quick,  5  Sandf.  612,  192 

Grant  v.  Reese,  82  N.  Car.  72,  201 
Grant  v.  State,  89  Ga.  396,  S.  C.  15 

S.  E.  R.  488,  696 

Grant  v.  Westfall,  57  Ind.  121,  1168 
Grantham  v.  Canaan,  38  N.  H.  268,  550 
Grantier  v.  Rosecrance,  27  Wis. 

488,  436 

Granville  Co. Board  v. State  Board, 

106  N.  Car.  81,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R. 

1002,  611,  637 

Gratiot  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Rv.  Co., 

116  Mo.  450,  S.  C.  16  L.'  R.  A. 

189,  546,  547,  1106 

Gravais  v.  Falgoust,  34  La.  Ann. 

391,  490 

Graves  v.  Battlecreek,  95   Mich. 

266,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  757,  S.  C. 

19  L.  R.  A.  641,  810 

Graves  v.  Colwell,  90  111.  612,  32 

Graves  v.  Davenport,  50  Fed.  R. 

881,  794,  796 

Graves  v.  Maguire,  6  Paige  379,  492 
Graves  v.  Pemberton,  3  Ind.  App. 

71,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  177,  363 

Graves  v.  United  States,  150  U.  S. 

118,  S.  C.  37  Cent.  L.  Jour.  458,  820 
Graves  v.  White,  87  N.  Y.  463,  3-50 
Graj'  V.  Berry,  9  N.  H.  473,  598 

Gray  v.  Brignardello,  1  Wall.  627, 

188   189 
Gray  v.  Crockett,  35  Kan.  686,  S.' 

C.  12  Pac.  R.  129,  639 

Gray  v.  Douglass,  81  Me.  427,  S. 

C.  17  Atl.  R.  320,  434 

Gray  v.  Garnsev.  32  Me.  180,  192 

Gray  v.  Gray,  3  Litt.  (Kv.)  465,  720 
Gray  v.  Hawes,  8  Cal.  562,  614 

Gray  v.  Jackson,  51  N.  H.  9,  S.  C. 

12Am.  R.  1,  101 

Gray  v.  Kimball,  42  Me.  299,  276 


.  1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Gray  v.  Larimore,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.) 

542,  298 

Gray  V.  Murray,  4  Johns.  Ch.  (N. 

Y.)  412,        "  792 

Gray  y.  Palmer,  28  Cal.  416,     368, 1203 
Gray  v.  Palmer,  9  Cal.  616,  1182 

Gray  v.  Reed,  65  Vt.  178,  S.  C.  26 

Atl.  R.  526,  598 

Gray  v.  Robinson,  90  Ind.  527,        190 
Gray  v.  St.  John,  35  111.  222,  697 

Gray  v.  Stuart,  33  Gratt.  351,         1194 
Gray  v.  Thomas,  18  La.  Ann.  412, 

1232 
Gray  v.  Thomas,  83  Texas  246,  S. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  721,  505 

Graydon  v.  Gaddis,  20  Ind.  515,     514 
Greason  v.  Keteltas,  17  N.  Y.  491, 

585,  587 
Great  Western  Tp.  Co.  v.  Loomis, 

32  N.  Y.  127,  781 

Great  West,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Woodmas, 

etc.,  Min.  Co.,  12  Col.  46,  S.  C. 

20  Pac.  R.  771,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St. 

R.  204,  320,  440,  442 

Greelv  v.  Weaver  (Me.),  13  Atl. 

R.  575,  533 

Green  v.  Akers,  55  Ga.  159,  739 

Green  v.  Bulkley,  23  Kan.  130,      1131 
Green  y.  City  of  Indianapolis,  22 

Ind.  192,  545 

Green  v.  Cochran,  43  la.  544, 

553  1173 
Green  v.  Collins,  6  Ired.  139,  '  248 
Green  v.  Disbrow,  79  N.  Y.  1,  361 
Green  v.  Fisk,  103  U.  S.  518, 

1179,  1187 
Green  v.  Ford,  17  Ark.  586,  572,  596 
Green  v.  Goodloe,  7  Mo.  25,  1200 

Green  y.  Gould,  3  Allen  (Mass.) 

465,  806 

Green  v.  Green,  42  Kan.  654,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  Rep.  730,  612,  614 

Green  v.  Hallowell,  9  Pa.  St.  53,     1197 
Green  v.  Judith,  5  Rand.  (Va.) 

1,  1034 

Green  v.  Kindv,  43  Mich.  279,        455 
Green  v.  King,"  17  Fla.  452,  623 

Green  v.  Louthain,  49  Ind.  139,      393 
Green  v.  Milbank,  3  Abb.  (N.  C.) 

138  239  261 

Green  v.  Miller,  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.)' 

39,  S.  C.  5  Am.  Dec.  184,  591 

Green  v.  Palmer,  15  Cal.  411,  S. 

C.  76  Am.  Dec.  492,  526 

Green  y.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  11 

W.  Va.  685,  185 

Green   v.    Richmond,    155    Mass. 

188,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  770,  201 

Green  v.  Rick,  121  Pa.  St.  130,  S. 

C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  760,  498 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


CXXUl 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Green  v.  State,  90  Ala.  29,  S.  C. 

12  So.  R.  4Ui,  821 

Green  v.  State,  0(>  Ala.  40,  S.  C. 

41  Am.  R.  744,  308 

Green  v.  State,  17  Fla.  G()9,  522 

(ireen  v.  State,  5(5  Wis.  o83,  437 

(Jreen    v.   Tallair,    11    lluw.    Pr. 

2(iO,  1123 

Green  v.  Tower,  49  Kan.  302,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  4()8,  1093 

Green   v.  Van    Buskirk,  7  Wall. 

139,  302 
Green    v.    White,    18    Ind.    317, 

149,  151,  152 
Green  v.  Winter,  1  Johns.  Ch.  60, 

409,  493 
Green    v.  Wright,   36  Mo.    App. 

298,  554 

Green  County  v.  Wilhite,  35  Mo. 

App.  39,      '  180 

Greenberg  v.  Iloff,  80  Cal.  81,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  69,  1095 

Greene  v.  Couse,  13  L.  R.  A.  206,  371 
Greene  v.  Dingley,  24  Me.  181,  553 
Greene  v.  Greene,  145  111.  264,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  941,  1081 

Greene  v.  Mnmford,  4  R.  I.  313,  258 
Greenfield  Gas.   Co.  v.   People's 

Co.,   131    Ind.  599,  S.  C.  31  N. 

E.  R.  61,  489 

Greenough  v.  Greenough,  11  Pa. 

St.  489,  115,  117,  170 

Greenough  v.  Rolfe,  4  N.  H.  357, 

578,  593,  600 
(rreenup  v.  Crooks,  50  Ind.  410,  236 
Greenup  v.  Stoker,  3  Gilm.  202,  1160 
Greenwald  v.  Appell,  17  Fed.  R. 

140,  382 
Greenwood     v.     Bradford,     128 

Mass.  296,  116 

Greenwood  v.  Curtis,  6  Mass.  358, 

S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec.  145,  292 

Greenwood  v.  State,  116  Ind.  485, 

S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  333,  233 

Greer  v.  Higerins.  20  Kan.  420,  801 
Greer  v.  State,  53  Ind.  420,  739 

Greer  v.  Young,  120  111.  184,  S.  C. 

11  N.  E.  R.  167,  454,  457 

Gregs  V.  Cooke,  1  Peck  (Tenn.) 

82,^  148,  155 

Gregg  V.  State,  3  W.Va.705,  696,  697 
Gregg  Township   v.  Jamison,  55 

Par  St.  468,  802 

Gregory  v.  Boyier,  77  Cal.  121,  S. 

C.  19  Pac.  R.  233.  146,  157 

Gregory  y.  Choenell,  55  Ind.  101,  1158 
Gregory  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Ohio"  St.  675,  220 

Gregory   v.   Commonwealth,    121 

Pa.  St.  611,  385,  386 


1-fJO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-1244.] 

Gregory  v.  Dodge,  14  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  593,  514,  1219 

Gregory  v.  Frothingham,  1  Nev. 

253,  1109 

Gregory  v. Gregory,  76  Me.  535,  S. 

C.  57  Am.  R.  792,  ^  287 

Gregory  v.  Kenyon,  34  Neb.  640, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  685,  1177 

Gregory  y.  Ohio  River  R.  R.  Co., 

37  W.  Va.  606,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R. 

819,  822 

Gregory  y.  Pierce,  4  Mete.  478,  1139 
Gregory  v.  Purdue,  29  Ind.  66,  192 
Gregory  v.  State  94  Ind.  384,  115 

Grenfell  v.  Dean.  2  Beav.  544,  497 
Gresham  v.  Ewell,  84  Va.  784,  S. 

C.  6  S.  E.  R.  700,  217 

Gresham  v.  Peterson,  25  Ark.  377,  476 
Grewell    v.     Henderson,   5   Cal. 

465,  449 

Gridlev  v.  College,  etc.,  137  N.  Y. 

327,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  321,  1219 

Gridley  v.  Globe  Tobacco,  Co.,  71 

Mich.  528,  S.C.  39  N.W.  R.  754,     556 
Griel  v.  Lomax,  86  Ala.  132,  S.  C. 

5  So.  R.  325,  540 

Grier  v.  Grier,  1  Dall.  (U.  S.)  173,  596 
Griesel  v.  Schmal,  55  Ind.  475,  410 
Griffee  v.  Mann,  62  Md.  248,  254 

Griffin's  Case,  Chase's  Dec.  361,  235 
Griffin,  Matter  of,  25  Tex.  (Supp.) 

623,  235 

Griffin  v.  Auburn,  58  N.  H.  121,  547 
Griffin  v.  Cunningham,  20  Gratt. 

31,  118 

Griffin   y.    Earned,    111    111.   432, 

1112,1117 
Griffin  v.State  (Ala.), 8S0.R. 670,  657 
Griffin  y.  State,  119  Ind.  520,  212 

Griffith  v.  Frazier,  8  Cranch,  9,  335 
Griffith  V.  Hilliard,  64  Vt.  643,  S. 

C.  25  Atl.  R.  427,  484 

Griffith   V.   Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  46 

Mo.  App.  539,  1143 

Griffith  v.  State,  37  Ark.  324,  801 

Griffith  V.  State,  90  Ala.  583,  797 

Griffiths.  Ex  parte,118  Ind.  83,  119, 212 
Griffith's  Estate,  84  Cal.  107,  S.  C. 

23  Pac.  R.  528,  314 

Griffith's  Lessee  y. Wright,  18  Ga. 

173,  314 

Grigg  V.  Banks,  59  Ala.  311,  468 

Griggs  y.  Seeley,  8  Ind.  264,  1031 

Grignon's  Lessee  v.  .\stor,  2  How. 
(U.  S.)  319. 

116,  241.  271,  274,  315,  325,  427 
Grigsbv  y.  May  (Tex.),  19  S.  W. 

r:  343,  ■  220 

Grigsby  v.  Schwarz.  82  Cal.  278, 

S.  C."  22  Pac.  R.  1041,  177 


CXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Befei-ences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
Grimes  v.  Chamberlain,  27  Neb. 
605,  S.  C.  43N.  AV.  R.  395, 

1044,  1047,  1183 
Grimes  v.  Dnzan,  32  Iml.  361,  1151 
Grimes  v.  Fall,  15  Cal.  63,  414,  o06 
Grimes  v.  Martin,  10  la.  347,  696,  69/ 
Grimes  v.  State,  63  Ala.  166,  1069 

Grimm  v.  Hamel,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.) 

434,  50^ 

Grimmett  v.  Askew,  48  Ark.  lol, 

S.  C.  2S.  W.  R.  707,       142,154,454 
Grinde  v.  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul 

R.  R.  Co.,  42  la.  376,  529 

Grindley  v.  Barker,  1  Bos.  &  P. 

929  592 

Grinstead  v.Buckley,32  Miss.148,  226 
Grissom  v.  Moore,  106  Ind.  296,  618 
Griswold  V.  Burroughs,  15  N.  Y. 

Supp.  314,  S.  C.  67  Hun  558,         393 
Griswold  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

12  Am.  St.  R.  775,  740 

Griswold  v.  North  Stonington,  5 

Conn.  367,  582 

Griswold  V.  Sharpe,2Cal.l7,  463, 1224 
Griswold  v.  Sheldon,  4  N.Y.  580,  341 
Griswold  v. Wright,  61  Wis.  195,  566 
Groat  V.  Pracht,  31  Kan.  656,  597 

Groenvelt  v.  Burwell,  1  Ld.Raym. 

454,  241,  260 

Groh  V.  Bassett,  7  Minn.  325,  1164 
Gronfier  v.  Puymirol,  19  Cal.  629, 

293,  443 
Gronour  V.Daniels, 7  Blackf.108,  1076 
Groome  v.  Lewis,  23  Md.  137,  199 

Groscop  V.  Ranier,  111  Ind.361,  1092 
Groshom  v.  Thomas,  20  Md.  234,  517 
Gross  V.  Shaffer,  29  Kan.  442,  1071 
Grosse  v.  State,  11  Tex.  App.  364, 

801,  820 
Grosvenor  v.  Magill,  37  111.  239,  379 
Grotenkemper  v.  Carver,  4  Lea 

375,  1179 

Grotton  v.  Glidden,  84  Me.  589,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  1008,  1121 

Grove  v.  Brien,  1  Md.  438,  1068 

Grover  v.  Coon,  1  N.  Y.  536,  296 

Grover,  etc.,Co.v.  Barnes,  49  Ind. 

136,  1132 

Groves  v.  Rirhmond,  53  la.  570,  255 
Grubb  V.  McDonald,  91  Pa.  St.  236,  679 
Grubb  V.  State,  117  Ind.  277,  S.  C. 

20  N.  E.  R.  257,  824 

Grubbs  v.  Morris,  103  Ind.  166,     1224 
Grube  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 
98  Mo.  330,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  776, 

1050,  1053 
Grube  v.  Nichols,  36  111.  92,  1071 

Gruble  v.  Ryus,  23  Kan.  195,        1162 
Grusenmever  v.  City  of  Logans- 
port,  76  Ind.  549,  164,533 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Guaranty  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bud- 
dington,  27  Fla.  215,  S.  C.  12  L. 
R.  A.  770,  449,  450 

Guaranty  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Green  Cove  Spring,  etc.,  Co., 
139  U.  S.  137,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  512,  450 

Guard  V.  Risk,  11  Ind.  156,  1119 

Guardians',  etc..  Bank  v.  Reillv, 

8  Mo.  App.  544,  254 

Gudtner  v.    Kilpatrick,   14   Neb. 

347,  346 

Guendar,  In  re,  69  Cal.  88,  220 

Guerin  v.  Hunt,  6  Minn.  375,  503 

Guernsev  v.  Carver,  8  Wend.  492, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  60,  301,  1177 

Guernsey  v.    Wood,   130    Mass. 

503,  284 

Guerra  v.  Burton,  23  Cal.  592,  224 
Guess   V.    Stone   Mountain,    etc., 

Co.,  72  Ga.  320,  678 

Guest  V.  Reynolds,  68  111.  478,  484 
Guetig  V.  State,  66  Ind.  94,  S.  C. 

32  Am.  R.  99,  659,  1074 

Guffee  V.  Mann,  62  Md.  248,  1188 

Guffin  V.  Leslie,  20  Md.  15,  311 

Guffin  V.  Seymour,  15  la.  30,  1179 

Guilbeau  v.  Cormier,  32  La.  Ann. 

930,  226 

Guild  V.  Richardson,  6  Pick.  364,  454 
Guilford  v.  Love,  49  Tex.  715,  316 
Guimond  v.  Nast,  44  Tex.  114,  443 
Guirl  V.  Gillett,  124  Ind.  501,  1238 
Gulf,  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Coon, 

69  Tex.  730,  799 

Gulf,  C.  &  St.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hath- 
away, 75  Texas,  557,  S.  C.  12  S. 
W.  R.  999,  1113 

Gulf,  C.   &  S.   F.   R.   R.  Co.  V. 

.lames,  4  U.  S.  App.  19,  434 

Gulf,   C.  &   S.  F.    R.   R.   Co.  V. 

James,  48  Fed.  R.  148,  431 

Gulf,  C.  &  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  V.Wash- 
ington, 49  Fed.  R. 347,         529,  1229 
Gulf,  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Witte, 
68  Texas  295,  S.  C.  4  S.  W.  Rep. 
490,  821 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Blohn,  73 

Tex.  6.37,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  764,     1066 
Gulf,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.   v.    Calhoun 

(Tex.),  24  S.  W.  Rep.  362,  739 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.Evansich,  61  Tex. 

3,  508 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Jones,  73  Tex. 

232,  S.  C.  11  SW.  R.  185,  1243 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Settegast,  79 
Texas  256,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R. 
228,  388 

Gulic'k  V.  Turnpike  Co.,  14  N.  J. 
L.  545,  375 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXV 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  ViA.  I,  pp 
Gull,  etc.,  Co.  V.  School  Dist.,  1 

N.  Dak.  oOO,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  K. 

427,  114(3 

Gull  River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Keefe, 

6  Dak.  Kid,  41  N.  W.  R.  748,  528 
Gulley  V.  Macy,  89  N.  Car.  343,  594 
Guiunier    v.    (Juiro  Trustees,   50 

Wis.  247,  1040 

GuniUin   v.   Hamburg,  etc.,  Co., 

28  N.  Y.  8upp.572,  1216 

Gunn  V.  Durkee,  41  Kan.  144,       1159 
Gunn  V.  Howell,  35  Ala.  144,  S. 

C.  73  Am.  Dec.  484,  474 

Gunn  V.  Oiiio  River,  etc.,  Co.,  37 

AV.Va.421,S.C.  168.  E.  R.  628,  813 
Gunn  V.  Plant,  94  TI.  S.  664,  182 

Gunn  V.  Tackett,  67  Ga.  725,  182 

Gunter  v.  Granitville,  etc.,  Co., 

18  S.  Car.  263,  658 

Gunther  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co., 

134  U.  S.  110,  1053 

Gunzberg  v.  Miller,  39  Mich.  80,     442 
Gurley  V.Park  (Ind.),35N.  E.  R. 

279,  729 

Gurlev  v.  Tomkins,  17  Col.  437,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  Rep.  344,  552 

Gurnea  v.  Seeley,  66  HI.  500,  1193 

Gustin  v.  Jefferson  County,  15  la. 

158,  369 

Gutch  V.   Fosdick,  48    N.  J.  Eq. 

353,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  590,  360 

Guthman  v.  Kearn,  8  Neb.  502,       401 
Guthrie  v.  Guthrie,  71  la.  744,  S. 

C.  30  N.  W.  R.  779,  217 

Guthrie  v.  Olson,  44  Minn.  404,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  853,  394 

Gutteridge  v.  Smith,  2  H.  B.  374,    399 
Gutterson    v.    Morse,   58    N.    H. 

165,  797 

Guv  V.  Doak,  47  Kan.  236,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  968,  195 

Guver  v.  Cox,  1  Overt.    (Tenn.) 

184,  622 

Gyfordv.Woodgate,  11  East  297,    455 


H 


Haas  V.  Taylor.  80  Ala.  459,  394 

Habersham  v.  Wetter,  59  Ga.  11,    1170 
Hablichtel  v.  Yambert,  75  la.  539, 

S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.  877,  1212 

Hacker  v.  Horlemus,  69  Wis.  280, 

S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  125,  551 

Hackett  v.  Baiss,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  494, 

483 
Hackett  v.  Lathrop,  36  Kan.  661, 

S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  220,  452 

Hackett  v.  State,  113  Ind.  532,  S. 

C.  15  N.  E.  R.  799,  427 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.  ] 
Hackford  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,53  N.  Y.  654,  1088 

Hackleman    v.    Boanl,    94    Ind. 

36,  363 

Hackley  v.  Muskegon  Cir.  J.,  58 

Mich.  454,  1169 

Hadaway  v.  Kelly,  78  HI.  286,        597 
Hadden  v.  Sprader,  20  Johns.  554, 

499 
Hadduck  v.  Murray,  1  X.  IL  140, 

S.  C.  8  Am.  I)ec.'43,  555 

Hadiev  v.  Gutridge,  58  Ind.  302,     454 
Hadley  v.  Hadiev,  82  Ind.  75, 

1089,  1210,  1230 
Lladlev  v.  Heywood,    121   Mass. 

2.^6,  ■  1114,1121 

Hafern  v.  Davis,  10  Wis.  501,  448 

Hafner  v.  Irwin,  4  Ired.  L.  529,      433 
Hagaman    v.    Commissioners,    19 

Kan.  394,  403 

Hagan  v.  Blindell,  54  Fed.  R.  40, 

S.  C.  56  Fed.  R.  696,  478,  480,  482 
Hagan  v.  Lucas,  10  Pet.  400,  196,467 
Hagar  v.  Mounts,  3  Blackf.  57,  1211 
Hageman  v.  Moreland,  33  Mo.  86, 

1047 
Haeonbuck  v.  McClaskey,  81  Ind. 

577,  1030 

Ilagerman  v.  Empire  State  Co., 

97  Pa.  St.  534,  440 

Haeerman  v.  Ohio  Building,  etc., 

Ass'n,  25  Ohio  St.  186,  450 

Hagerty  v.  Mann.  56  Md.  522,        377 
Haeerty's  Ex'rs  v.  Scott,  10  Tex. 

525,  619 

Haesard  v.   Hays'  Admr.,  13  B. 

Mon  (Ky.)  175,  529 

Haggart  v.  Morsan,  5  N.  Y.  422, 

S".  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  350,  464, 

469,  587,  588,  597 

Haegartv  v.  Judav,  58  Ind.  154,     1146 

Hagger  v.  Baker,'l4  M.  &  W.  9,     580 

Hagner  v.  Musgrove,  1  Dall.  (U. 

Hahn  v.'  Kellv,  34  Cal.  391, 

116,126,180,299 
Hahn  v.  Kellv,  94  Am.  Dec.  762, 

331,  425 
Haight  V.  Cornell,  15  Conn.  74,  540 
Haight  V.  Hovt,  50  Conn.  583, 

1119,  1120 
Hail  V.  Spencer,  1  R.  I.  17,  377 

Hain  v.  Northwest  Gravel  Road 

Co.,  41  Ind.  196,  527 

Haines  v.  Bottorff,  17  Ind.  348,        434 
Haines  v.  Carpenter,  1  Woods  262, 

495 
Haines  v.  Kent.  11  Ind.  126.  669 

Haines  v.  McLantrhlin,  1.35  U.  S. 
504,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  876,       1076 


CXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Haines  v.  Saviers.  93  Mich.  440, 

S.  C.  53N.  W.  R.  531,        1141,1218 
Hairgrove  v.  Millington,  8  Kan. 

480,  1088 

Haish  V.  Mundav,12  Bradw.(Ill.), 

539,  737 

Hakanson  v.  Brodke,  36  Neb.  42, 

S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  1033,  1051 

Hake  v.  Biiell,  50  Mich.  89,  394 

Halbert  v.  Stinson,  6  Blkf.  398,       470 
Haldeman  v.  Berry,  74  Mich.  424, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  57,  559 

Haldeman  v.  Starrett,  23  111.  393,  1197 
Haldeman  v.  United  States,  91  U. 

S.  584,  1046 

Halderman  v.  Halderman,  Hemp. 

407,  1210 

Hale  V.  Continental  Life  Ins.  Co., 

20  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  515,  87 

Hale  V.  Cummings,  3  Ala.  398,        469 
Hale  V.  Handv,  26  N.  H.  206,  584 

Hale  V.  Haselton,  21  Wis.  320,      1240 
Hale  V.  Lawrence,  21   N.  J.   L. 

714,  610 

Hale  V.  Point  Pleasant,  etc.,  Co., 
Hales  V.  Petit,  1  Plowden  253,         954 

23  W.  Va.  454,  487 

Halev  V.  Elliott,  16  Col.  159,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  559,  1230 

Haley  v.  Jump  River,  etc.,  Co.,  81 

Wis.  412,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  321, 

228,  1090 
Haley  v.  State,  63  Ala.  89,  539,  807 
Hall  V.  Armstrong,  65  Vt,  421,  S. 

C.  20  L.  R.  A.  366,  1127 

Hall  V.  Armstrong  (Vt.),  26  Atl. 

R.  592,  642,  643 

Hall  V.  Barton,  25  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

274,  511 

Hall  V.  Bennett  (N.  Y.),  16  J.  & 

S   302,  407 

Hall  V.  Bray,  51  Mo.  288,         121,171 
Hall  V.  Brown,  30  Conn.  551,  798 

Haltv.  Brown,  59  N.  H.  198,  190 

Hall  v.Bumstead,  20  Pick.  (Mass.) 

2,  380 

Hall  V.  Carter,  74  la.  364,  S.  C.  37 

N.  W.  R.  956,  1100 

Hall  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  65  la. 

258,  668 

Hall  V.  Com.,  22  W.  N.  C.  25,  S. 

C.  12  Atl.  R.  163,  657 

Hall  V.  Commonwealth  (Va.),  15 

S.  E.  R.  517,  660 

Hall  V.  Craig,  125  Ind.  523,  S.  C. 

25  N.  E.  R.  5.38,  609,  611 

Hall  V.  Durham,  109  Ind.  434,        1051 
Hall  V.  Farmers',  etc..  Bank,  55  la. 

612,  394 

Hall  V.  Felton,  105  Mass.  516,         360 


1-602.  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Hall  V.  Filter  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Phila. 

(Pa.),  370,  471 

Hall  V.  Flockton,  16  Ad.  &  El.  (N. 

S.)  1039,  550 

Hall  V.  Hinds,  2  M.  &  G.  847,  600 

Hall  V.  Hudson,  20  Ala.  284, 

181,  183,  1189,  1203 
Hall  V.  Kimmer,  61  Mich.  269,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  575,  572,  584 

Hall  V.  King,  29  Ind.  205,  1113 

Hall  V.  Marks,  34  111.  360,  116,  118 
Hall  V.  Merrill,  47  Minn.  260,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  280,  185 

Hall  V.  Mount,  3   Cold.  (Tenn.) 

395,  161 

Hall  V.  Nees,  27  111.  410,  1163,  1169 
Hall  V.  Norwalk  Ins.  Co., 57  Conn. 

105,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  356,        404,599 
Hall  V.  Posey,  79  Ala.  84,  1056 

Hall  V.  Renfro,  3  Mete.  (Kv.)  51,  1074 
Hall  V.  State,  3  Ga.  18,      "  1171 

Hall  V.  State,  3  Lea  (Tenn.)  552,  161 
Hall  V.  Thayer,  12  Mete.  130,  363 

Hall  V.  Thaver,  105  Mass.  219,  136,  218 
Hall  V.  Wadsworth,  30  W.  Va.55, 

113  332  1214 
Hall  V.  Weare,  92  U.  S.  728,'  "'  677 
Hall  v.Whittier,  10  R.  1.530,  401,404 
Hall  V.  Wolff,  61  la.  559,  819,  823 

Hall  V.  Wood,  9  Gray  60,  363 

Hallack  v.  March,  25  111.  48,  583 

Halleck  v.  Mixer,  16  Cal.  574,  375 

Halley  v.  Folsom,  1  N.  Dak.  325, 

S.  C.  48N.  W.  R.219,  714 

Hallinger  V.  Davis,  146  U.  S.  314,  1127 
Hallock  v.Dominy,69N.Y.  238,  165 
Hallock  V.  Jaudin,  34  Cal.  167,  1196 
Hallstead  v.  Coleman,  143  Pa.  St. 

352,  S.C.  22  Atl.  R.  977,  S.  C.  13 

L.  R.  A.  370,  535 

Halpin  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  118  N. 

Y.  165,  402 

Halsey  v. McLean, 12  Allen(Mass.) 

438 '  373 

Halsey  v.  Stewart,  4  N.J.  L.  366,  457 
Halstead  v.  Brown,  17  Ind.  202,  1239 
Halstead  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  58  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  270,  660 

Halstead  v.  Seaman,  82  N.  Y.  27, 

593,  601 
Ham  V.  Carroll,  17  Ind.  442,  1166 

Ham  V.  Rogers,  6  Blackf.  559,  262 
Hamblan   v.  McManus,    100  Mo. 

124,  S.  C.  18  Am.  St.  R.  533,       1149 
Hambv  v.  State,  36  Tex.  523,  29 

Hamilton  v.  Ames,  74  Mich.  298, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  930,  111 

Hamilton  v.  Armstrong  (Mo.),  20 

S.  W.  R.  1054,  1144 

Hamilton V.  Browning,94Ind.242,  394 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXVll 


[Beferences  are  to  Paf/es,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Hamilton  v.  Biircli,  2H  Ind.  2;«,  192 
Ilaiiiilton  V.  J?iixt<)ii,  ")  Ark.  4l)U,  255 
Hamilton    v.    IJucliaiian,    112    N. 

Car.  4{j3,  S.  C.   17  S.  K.  11.  loM, 

10.S8,  1091 
Hamilton  v.  Bvram,  122  Iiid.  28,'^, 

1148,  1149,  1151 
Hamilton  v.  Conyers,  28  Ga.  27(),  807 
Hamilt(jn  v.  Cummings,  1  J(jhn3. 

Ch.  517,  301 

Hamilton  v.  Hamilton,  27  111.158,  576 
Hamilton  v.  Hart,  125  Pa.  St.  142, 

8.  C.  17  Atl.  K.  22().  595 

Hamilton  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  137 

U.  8.  370,  575,  588,  589 

Hamilton    v.   Iowa   Bank,  40  la. 

307,  1142 

Hamilton  v.  Miller.  46  Kan.  486, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  1030,  791 

Hamilton   v.    Moore,  4  W.  &   S. 

(Pa.)  570,  1229 

Hamilton     v.    Pease,    38     Conn. 

115,  1159 
Hamilton  v.  Pearson,  1  Ind.  540, 

S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  480,  711 

Hamilton  v.  People,  29  Mich.  173,  803 
Hamilton  v.  Slioaff,  99  Ind.  63,  1097 
Hamilton  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co., 

33  Fed.  R.  5()2,  1128 

Hamilton  v.  Summers,  12  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  11,S.C.  54  Am.  Dec.509,  706 
Hamilton    v.   Territory,    1   Wyo. 

Ter.  131  230 

Hamilton'  V.    Williford,    90    Ga. 

210,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  753,  1224 

Hamilton  v.  Wright,  37  N.Y.  502,  605 
Hamlett  v.  Simms,  44  Ark.  141,  1184 
Hamlin  v.  Kassafer,  15  Ore.  458, 

215,  217 
Handyn  v.  Nesbit,  37  Ind.  284,  675 
Hammer   v.    Garfield,   etc.,    Co., 

130  U.  S.  291,  1127 

Hammett  v.  Brown,  60  Ala.  498,  392 
Hammil  v.  State,  90  Ala.  577,  660 

Hammond  v.  Hopkins,  143  U.  S. 

224,  373 

Hammond   v.  Johnston,  93   IMo. 

198,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  83,  504 
Hammond  v.  Olive,  44  ]\Iiss.543,  439 
Hammond  v.  Schiff,   100  N.  Car. 

161,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  753,  712,  1215 
Hammond  v.  Stuart,  1  Str.  510,  521 
Hammond    v.    Wallace,   85    Cal. 

522,  S.  C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  2.39,  1044 
Hamner  v.  Smith,  22  Ala.  433,  33 

Hampson  v.  Weare,  66  Am.  Dec. 

116,  441 
Hampton   v.  Windham,  2  Root, 

199,  1035 
Hanchett  v.  Finch,  47  Cal.  192,       628 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Hancock  v.  Colyer,  99  Mass.  187, 

S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec.  730,  471 

Hancock  v.  Cook,  18  Pick. (Mass.) 

30,  386 

Hancock  v.  Elam,  3  Baxt.  33,  1123 
Hancock  v.  Harper,  86  111.  445,  376 
Hancock  v.  Ritchie,  11  Ind.  48,  .377 
Hancock  v.  Titu.s,  39  Miss.  224,  198 
Hancock  v.  Town  of  Worcester,  62 

Vt.  106,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  1041, 

164, 1240,  1246 
Hancock  v.Yaden,  121  Ind.  366, 

120,  308 
Hancock's  Will,  91  N.  Y.  284,  220 

Hand  v.  Kennedy,  83  N.Y.  149,  1131 
Handlev  v.  Pfister  39  Cal.  283,  S. 

C.  2  Am.  R.  449,  467 

Handy  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,' 31  Fed.  R.  689,  497 

Handy  v.  Cobb,  44  Miss.  699,  581,  597 
Handy  v.  Dobbin,  12  .lohns.  220,  197 
Handy  v.  Hopkins,  59  :\Id.  157,  298 
Hanes  v.Worthington,  14  Ind.320, 

159,  234 
Haney  v.  Caldwell,  59  Ark.  156,  537 
Ilangen  v.  Ilachemeister,  11  Am. 

St. R.  691,  739 

Hanger  v.  Abbott,  6  Wall.  (U.S.) 

532,  381 

Ilankey  v.  Downey,  3  Ind.  App. 

325,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  606, 

526,  1103,  1104,  1106 
Hanks  v.  Roberts,  3  J.  J.  Marsh. 

(Kv.)  298,  1051 

Hanks  v.  Van  Garder,  59  la. 179,  514 
Ilanna  v.  Bry,  5  La.  Ann.  651,  198 
Ilannav.  Curtis,  1  Barb.Ch.  263,  1210 
Hanna  v.  Maas,  122  U.  S.  24,  1243 
Hanna  v.  McKenzie,  5  B.  ]Mon. 

314,  S.  C.  43  Am.  Dec.  122,  346 

Hanna  V.  Mills,  21  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

90,  S.  C.  34  Am.  Dec.  216,  1116 

Ilanna  v.  Morrow,  43  Ark.  107,  316 
Ilanna  v.  People,  86  111.  243,  629 

Hanna  v.  Phelps,  7  Ind.  21,  159 

Ilanna  v.  Phillips,  1  Grant  Cas. 

(Pa.)  253,  540 

Hanna  v.  Russell,  12  Minn.  80,  423 
Hannah  v.  Dorrell,  73  Ind.  465, 

192,  1243 
Hannah  v.  Swarner,  8  Watts  (Pa.) 

9,  S.  C.  34  Am.  Dec.  442,  560 

Hannahan  v.  Nichols,  17  Ga.  77,  476 
Hannahs  v.  Felt,  15  la.  141,  468 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  v.  Crane,  102 

111.  249,  440,  470,  476 

Hannon  v.  Hilliard.lOl  Ind.  310,  71 
Hannum  v.  Belchertown,  19  Pick. 

311,  1160,  1162 

Hannum  v.  State,  38  Ind.  32,         1139 


CXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Hanniim  v.  Wallace,  9  Humph. 

(Teun.)  129,  .      582 

Hanover,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Germama, 

etc.,  Co.,  33  Hun  539,  194 

Hanover,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Lewis,  22 

Fla.  568,  ^       .       ^.1234 

Hanover,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lewis,  'J6 

Fla.  193,  S.  C.  1  So.  R.  863,  1025 
Hanrahan  v.  People,  91  Ind.  142,  1068 
Hansbroush   v.   Thorn,   3    Leigh 

(Va.)  147,  .       1034 

Hanscom  v.    Hinman,  30   Mich. 

419.  398 

Hansen  v.  Bergquist,  9  Neb.  269,  153 
Hansen  v.  Butler,  48  Me.  81,  199, 471 
Hansen  v.  Miller,  145  111.  538,  S. 

C.  32  N.  E.  Rep.  548,  783,  789 

Hansen  v.  Schlesinger,  125  111.  230,  184 
Hansford    v.    Hansford,   34   Mo. 

App.  262,  429 

Hanson  v.  Armstrong,  22  111.  442,  503 
Hanson  v.  Butler,  48  Me.  81,  476 

Hanson  v.  Crawley,  51  Ga.  528,  1051 
Hanson  v.  Graham,  82  Cal.  631, 

S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  127,  464 

Hanson  v.  W.  A.  Hunter,  etc., 
Co.  (la.),  34  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cases  83,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 
1005,  483 

Hanson  v.  Webber,  40  Me.  194, 

594,  596 
Hanvey  v.  State,  68  Ga.  612,  179 

Happy  V.  Mosher,48  N.  Y.  313, 

^^•'  270,  424 

Harbaugh  v.  Albertson,  102  Ind. 

69,  346 

Harback  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  80  la.  593,  370 

Harbin  v.  Bell,  54  Ala.  389,  300,  345 
Harbison  v.  McCartney,  1  Grant 

172,  198 

Harbor  V.Morgan,  4  Ind.  158,  31,721 
Hard  V.  Shipman,  6  Barb.  621,  154 
Hardaway    v.    Semmes,   38   Ala. 

657,  302 

Hardee  v.  Williams,  30  Ga.  921 ,  915 
Harden  v.  Fisher,  1  Wheat.   (U. 

S.)  300,  1108,  1154 

Harden  v.  Hays,  9  Pa.  St.  151,  795 
Hardenburgh    v.    Kidd,    10   Cal. 

402,  212 

Hardin  v.  Branner,  25  la.  364,  1105 
Hardin  v.  Helton,  50  Ind.  319,  1065 
Hardin  v.   Ho-Yo-Po-Nubby,   27 

Miss.  567,  605 

Hardin  v.  Kretsinger,  17  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  293,  506 

Hardin  v.  Lee,  51  Mo.  241,  465 

Hardin  v.  Trimier,  32  8.  Car.  600, 
S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  342,      113,  332,  1214 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-I244.1 
Harding  v.  Alden.  9  Greenl.  146, 

S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  549,  287 

Harding    v.    Coburn,    12    Metcf. 

(Mass.)  333,  33 

Harding  v.  Fuller,  141  111.  308,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  1053,  1129 

Harding  v.  Jasper,  14  Cal.  642,       643 
Hiirdman  v.  Belhouse,  9  Mees.  & 

W.  596,  550 

Hards  v.  Burton,  79  111.  504,  213 

Hardy's  Case,  24  How.  State  Tr. 

755;  779 

Hardv  V.  Beatv,  84  Tex.  562,  S.C. 

31  Am.  St.R.  80,     329,428,445,447,451 
Hardy  v.  Keeler,  56  111.  152,  394 

Hardy  v.  McClellan,  53  Miss.  507, 

^  195,  495 

Hardv  V.  Merrill,  56  N.  H.  227,  S. 

C.  22  Am.  R.  441,  679 

Hardy  V.  Miller,  11  Neb.  395,  1197 
Hardy  v.  Ryle,  9  Barn.  &  Cres. 

603,  379 

Hardy  v.  Simpson,  13  Ired.  L.(N. 

Car.)  132,  640 

Hardy  v.  Sprowle,  32  Me.  310,  656 
Harev.Niblo,  4Leigh.(Ya.)  359,  432 
Hargadine  v.  Van  Horn,  72  Mo. 

370,  465 

Hargrave  v.  Vaughn,    82  Texas 

347,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  695,  664 

Harker,  Ex  parte,  49  Cal.  469,  118 
Harker  v.  Brink,  24  N.  J.  L.  333,  442 
Harker  v.  State,  8  Blackf.  540,  705 
Harkness  v.  Hyde,  98  U.  S.  476, 

333,  611,  613 
Harless  v.  Petty,  98  Ind.  53,  1048 

Harlow  v.  Dehon,  111  Mass.  195,  372 
Harmon  v.    Birehard,   8   Blackf. 

(Ind.)  418,  474 

Harmon  v.  Chandler,  3  la.  150,  1235 
Harmon   v.  James,   7   Sm.  &  M.. 

(Miss.)  Ill,  551 

Harmon  v.  Moore,  112  Ind.  221, 

221,  327,  330 
Harmon  v.  Stuthers,   48   Fed.  R. 

260,  1187 

Harner  v.  Batdorf,  35  O.  St.  113,  1143 
Harness  v.  State,  57  Ind.  1,  712,  784 
Harnett  v.  Harnett,  59  la.  401,  1167 
Harnish  v.  Bramer,  71  Cal.  155, 

S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  888,  266 

Harpending    v.   Meyer,    55   Cal. 

555  365 

Harper  v.  Biles,  115  Pa.  St.  594,  S. 

C.  8  Atl.  R.  446,  1198 

Harperv.  Ely,  56  111.  179,  412 

Harper  v.  Harper,  57  Ind.  547,  361 
Harper  v.  Jacobs,  51  Mo.  296, 

^  226,  233,  234 

Harper  v.  Minor,  27  Cal.  107,        1134 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXIX 


[^References  are  to  Pafjes,  Vol.  /,  pp 

Harper  v.  State,  101  Ind.  10!), 

1071,  1074,  11(31,  11G5 
Harper  v.  State,  42  Ind.  405,  159,  101 
Harrell  v.  Americas  Refrigerator 

Co.  (Ga.),  17  S.  E.  K.  028,  480 

Harrell  v.  Kelly,  2  McCord  420,  308 
Harrelson  v.Sarvis  (S.  Car.),  17  S. 

1-:.  R.  308,  1041, 1043 

Harres  v.  Couimonwealth,  35  Pa. 

St.  410,  173 

Harriman  v.  Eij]>ert,  30  Iowa  270, 

413 
Harriman  v.  Queen  Ins.  Co.,  49 

Wis.  71,  1088,  1092 

Harrington  v.  Brown,  9  Allen  579, 

572,  584 
Harrington  v.  Heath,  15  Ohio  483, 

333 
Harrington  v.  Latta,  23  Neb.  84, 

S.  C.  3(i  N.  W.  K.304,  1150 

Harrington  v.  Loomis,  10  Minn. 

300,  445 

Harrington  v.  State,  70  Ind.  112,  1100 
Harrington  v.  Workingmen's  Ben. 

Ass'n,  70  Ga.  340,  589 

Harris  v.  Bank,  22  Fla.  501,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  K.  201,  518 

Harris  v.  Beam,  40  la.  118,  1048, 1049 
Harris  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  78  Ga. 

525,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  355,  783 

Harris  v.  Claflin,  30  Kan.  543,  S. 

C.  13  Pac.  R.  830,  445 

Harris  v.  Dennis,  1    Serg.   &   R. 

(Pa.)  230,  377 

Harris V.  Doe,  4  Blackf.(Ind.)309,  545 
Harris  v.  Gest,  4  Ohio  St.  409.  153 
Harris  v.   Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R. 

Co.,  37  Mo.  307,  71 

Harris  v.  Hardy,  3  Hill   (N.  Y.) 

393,  477 

Harris  v.  Harris,  71  N.  Car.  174, 

381 
Harris  v.  Harris,  61  Ind.  117,  263 

Harris  v.  Ilauser,  26  W.  Va.  595, 

1184 
Harris  v.  Hill,  7  Ark.  452,  508 

Harris  v.  Hull,  70Ga.831,  35 

Harris  v.  Kennedy,  48  AVis.  500,  33 
Harris  v.  Lester,  80  111.  307,  445 

Harris  v.  McClanahan,  79  Tenn. 

181,  260 

Harris  v.  Musgrave,  72  Tex.  18,  S. 

C.  9  S.  AV.  R.  90,  237 

Harris  v.  Muskingum,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Blaekf.  207,  S.  C.  29  Am.  Dec. 

372,  1195 

Harris  v.  Newell,  42  Wis.  687,  413 
Harris    v.   Phojnix   Ins.   Co.,   35 

Conn.  310,  473 

I 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-7244.] 
Harris  v.  Ray,  15  B.  Mon.  028,      1162 
Harris   v.   Rosenberg,   43   Conn. 

227,  731 

Harris  v.  Ross,  112  Ind.  314,  528 

Harris  v.  Sfhaffer,  92  N. Car.  30,  201 
Harris  v.  Sorial  JMnfg.  Co.,  9  R. 

1.99,  S.  C.  II  Am.  R.  224,  595 

Harris  v.  Tomlinson,  130  Ind.  420, 

1!)2,  1243 
Harris  v.  Vandeveer,  21  N.J.  Eq. 

424,  118 

Harris  v.W^all,  7  How. (U.S.)  692,  513 
Harris  v.  Woodv,  9  :\Io.    113, 

1051,  1055 
Harris  v.AVoodford,  98  Mich.  — , 

S.  C.  57  N.  W.  R.  9(5,  1007,  1068 

Harris  v.  Wright,  123  In<l.  272,  1214 
Harrisburg  v.  Forster,  8  Watts  12,  367 
Ilarrod  v.  Burgess,  5  Rob.  (La.) 

449,  464 

Harrison  v.  Beard,  30  Kan.  532,  445 
Harrison  v.  Cachelin,  27  Mo.  26,  1067 
Harrison  v.  Haas,  25  Ind.  281,  403 
Harrison  v.  Hall,  8  AIo.App.167,  362 
Harrison  v.  Harrison,  48  Kan. 443, 

S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  572,  1133 

I  larrison  v.  Harrison,  19  Ala.499,  287 
Harrison  v.  Earns wortli,  1  Heisk. 

751,  1178 

Harrison  v.  Farrington,  35  N.  J. 

Eq.  4,  438 

Harrison    v.    Gibson,    23    Gratt. 

(Va.)  212,  377 

Harrison  v.  Kramer,  3  la.  543,  1197 
Harrison  v.  Middleton,  11  Gratt. 

(Va.)527,  738 

Harrison  v.  Nixon,  9  Pet.  483,  1128 
Harrison  v.  Park,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 

170,  818 

Harrison  v.  Rowan,  3  AVash.  (U. 

S.)  580,  779,  783 

Harrison  v.  Sparrow,  7  Eng.  Ecc. 

357,  810 

Harrison  v.  State,   17  Tex.  App. 

442,  1074 

Harrison  V.Thurston,  11  FIa.307,  1183 
Harrison  v.  Trader,  29  Ark.  85. 

255,  468 
Harrison  v.  Union  Bank,  12  Neb. 

499,  373 

Harrison  v.  Young,  9  Ga.  359,  679 
Harshey  v.  Blackmarr,  20  la.  161, 

605,  606 


Ilarshman  v.  Armstrong,  43  Ind. 

120, 

377 

Ilarshman  v.  Mitchell,  117  Ind. 

312,                                      394,  397, 

398 

Hart  V.  Adams,  7  Gray  (Mass.) 

581, 

435 

cxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Hart  V.  Burch,  31  111.  App.  22,  S. 
C.  130  111.  426,  S.  C.  22  N.  E. 
R.  831,  332 

Hart  V.  Burnett,  15  Cal.  530,  954 

Hart  V.  Folev,  07  la.  407,  1233 

Hart  V.  (lonld.  62  Mich.  262,  S.C. 

28  N.  W.  R.  831,  571 

Hart   V.    Grav,  3   Sumn.  (U.  S.) 
-     339,  '  437 

Hart  V.  Kennedy,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  51, 
r'    S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  29,  593,  602 

/Hart  V.  Recto.,  7  Mo.  531,  1049 

'Hart  V.  Sansom,  110  U.  S.  151, 

•  275,  444 
Hart  V.  State,  49  Am.  R.  188,  809,  812 
Hart  V.  State,  14  Neb.  572,  178,  646 
Hart  V.  Storey,  1  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

143,  1048 

Hart  V.  Walker,  77  Ind.  331,  1212 

Hartford  v.  State,  96  Ind.  461,       1074 
Hartford,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Love,   125 
Hartford   City   Fire   Ins.   Co.   v. 

Carrugi,  41Ga.  660,  440 

Ind.  275,  1034 

Hartford,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Unsell, 

144  U.  S.  439,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct. 
I   R.  671,  1052 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bonner, 

etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  151,  576,  601 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Green, 

52  Miss.  332,  1044,  1180 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Owen, 
I     30  Mich.  441,  298 

Hartle  v.  Long,  5  Pa.  St.  491,  198 

Hartley  v.  Boynton,   17  Fed.  R. 

878,  '  445 

Hartley   v.    Chidester,    36    Kan. 

363,  S.  C.  13  Pac.  R.  578,  1166 

Hartlep    v.    Cole,  120    Ind.    247, 

1143,  1144 
Hartlepp  v.  Whitely   et   al.,  131 

Ind.  543,  185,  1151 

Hartman  v.  Aveline,  63  Ind.  344,     1151 
Hartman  v.  The  Cincinnati,  etc., 

Co.,  4  Ind.  App.  370,  S.  C.  30 
>     M.  E.  R.  9.30,  1029 

-Hartman  v.  Young,  17  Ore.  150, 

S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  596,  503 

Hartranft's   Appeal,    85    Pa.   St. 

•  483,  170,  251 
iHartshorne  v.  Cuttrell,  2   N.  J. 

•  Eq.  297,  599 
Hartsock  v.  Mort,  76  Md.  281,  S. 

C.  25  Atl.  303,  1226 

Hartupee  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co., 

97  Pa.  St.  107,  407 

Hartvig  v.  N.  P.  Lumber  Co.,  19 

Ore.  .522,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  358,  534 
Hartwell  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  50 

Hun  497,  344 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Hartz  V.  Commonwealth,  1  Grant 

Cas.  (Pa.)  359,  558 

Harvard  College  v.  Gore,  5  Pick. 

370,  312 

Harvey,  In  re,  16  111.  127,  188 

Harvev  v.  Ball,  32  Ind.  98,  292 

Harvey  v.  Coftin,  5  Blackf.  566,  619 
Harvey  v.  Cummings,  68  Tex.  599, 

S.  C.  5  S.  W.  R.  513,  537 

Harvey  v.  Dodge,  73  Me.  316,'  1068 
Harvey  v.  Ellithorpe,  26  111.  418,  676 
Harvey  v.  Farnie,  L.  R.  8  App. 

Cas."43,  288 

Harvey  v.  Fink,  111  Ind.  249,  1182 
Harvey  v.  Jones,3  Humph. (Tenn.) 

157,  1118 

Harvey   v.  Osborn,  55   Ind.  535, 

508,  718,  728 
Harvey  v.  Pollock,  148  Pa.  St.  534, 

S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  1127,  1044 

Harvey  v.  Rickett,  15  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  87,  1120 

Harvey  v.  Shelton,  7  Beav.  455,  591 
Harvey  v.  Sinker,  35  Ind.  841,  1231 
Harvev  v.Skipwith,16Gratt.(Va.) 

410, '  608 

Harvey  v.  State,  123  Ind.  260,  1236 
Harvey  v.  State,  80  Ind.  142,  1114 

Harvey    v.   Tyler,    2    Wall.   328, 

128,  130,  316,  1224 
Harwell  v.  Steel,  17  Ala.  872,  375 

Hasbrouck  v.  City  of  Milwaukee, 

21  Wis.  217,  1060 

Haskel  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.  173,  802 
Haskell  v.  Brewer,  11  Me.  258,  404 
Haskell  v.  Haven,  3  Pick.  (Mass.) 

404,  433 

Haskell  v.Starbird,  152  Mass.  117, 

S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  14,  1076 

Haskell  v.  Whitney,  12  Mass.  47,  586 
Haskins  v.  People,  14   111.    App. 

198,  632 

Hasselman  v.  Allen,  42  Ind.  257, 

1132,  1143 
Hasselman  Printing  Co.  v.  Fry, 

(Ind.)  35  N.  E.  R.  1045,  1052 

Hasselman  v.  Japanese,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Ind.  App.  180,  S.  C.  27  N.  E. 

R. 718,  413 

Hasson  v.  Commonwealth  (Ky.), 

11  S.  W.  R.  286,  640 

Hastings  v.  Livermore,  15  Gray 

(Mass.)  10,  800 

Hastings  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  R. 

Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  224,  1163 

Hatch,  In  re,  43  N.Y.  Sup.  Ct.  89,  424 
Hat  Sweat  Mnfg.  Co.  v.  Waring, 

46  Fed.  R.  47,  1046 

Hatch  V.  Arnault,  3  La.  Ann.  482,  1203 
Hatcli  V.  r.rown,  63  Me.  410,  512 


TAI'.LK    OF    CASES. 


CXXXl 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  J,  pp.  1  -(iWJ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  6'03-1244.] 


Hatch  V.  Peet,  23  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

575,  527 

Hatcli  V.  State,  8  Tex.  App.  410, 

S.  C.  34  Am.  Rep.  751,  820 

Hatcher  v.  Bo  wen,  74  Ga.  840,        5(19 
Hatcher  v.  State,  18  (ia.  460,  821 

Hatchcock  v.  State,  88  Ga.  91,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  959,  1114 

Hatcher  V.  Rochelaeu,  18  N.Y.  87,      31 
Hatfield    v.    Lockwood,    18    la. 

296,  1090 

Hatfield  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  33  Minn.  130,  810 

Hathaway  v.  P]ast  Tenn.   R.    R. 

Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  489,     548,  1053,  1055 
Hathaway   y.  Ilelmer,   25   Barb. 

(N.  Y.y29,  659 

Haugen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  (S.  Dak.),  53  N.  W.  Rep. 
769,  660,  1056 

Haun  V.  Wilson,  28  Ind.  296,  512 

Hauser  v.  Roth,  37  Ind.  89, 

181,  668,  1210 
Haussman  v.  Biirnham,  59  Conn. 
117,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  1065,      609,  610 
V.  Foster,  9  Pick.  (Mass.) 

545 
V.    Markstrum,    67  Wis. 

1070 
Neal,  43  Minn.  315,  S. 
W.  R.  612,  540 

Bush,   2  Johns.    (N. 

1156 
Drake,  43  Kan.  484,  S. 

450 


Hayen 

112, 
Hayen    v. 

493, 
Haven  v. 

C.  45  N. 
Hayens   y 

Y.)  387, 
Hayens  y. 

C.  23Pac.  R.  621 
Hayens  y.  Lawton,  49  Mo.  App 

1,  1231 

Hayemeyer  y.  Ingersoll,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  (N.  S.)  301,  515 

Hayer  y.  Schwyhart,  48  Mo.  App. 

50,  1076 

Hayerly,  etc.,   Co.  v.  How^cutt,  6 

Col.  574,  227,  228 

Hawes  y.  Clark,  84  Cal.  272,  619 

Hawes  y.  Coombs,  34  Ind.  455, 

397,  455,  576 
Hawes  y.  Hathaway,    14    Mass. 

233,  154 

Hawes  y.  Orr,  10  Bush  ( Ky.)  431,  300 
Hawes  y.  People.  129  111".   123,  S. 

C.  21  N.  E.  R.  777,  1237 

Hawes  y.  People,  124  111.  560,  124 

Hawes  y.  State,  88  Ala.  37,  S.  C. 

7  So.  R.  302,  630,667 

Hawkins  y.  Carroll,  50  ]Miss.  735,  202 
Hawkins  v.  (ilonn.  131  U.  S.  319,  360 
Hawkins  y.  Grimes,  13   B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  257,  679 

Hawkins  y.  Hawkins,  28  Ind.  66, 

381,451 


1193 

1027 

428 
586 

284 
280 


Hawkins  y.  Hughes,  87  N.  Car. 

115,  248,454 

Hawkins  v.  Ma.ssie,  62  Mo.  552,      254 
Hawkins   v.    New    Orleans,    etc., 

Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  134,  1124 

Hawkins  v.  Nye,  59  Texas  97,  533 

Hawkins  y.  State,   9  Ala.   137,  S. 

C.  44  Am.  Dec.  431,  664 

Hawkins  y.  State,  125  Ind.  570, 

118,  137.492 
Hawkins  y.  The  Governor,  1  Ark. 

570,  11.5,  170,  251 

Hawks  y.  Baker,  6  Me.  72,  723 

Hawks  v.  Crofton,  2  Burr.  698,      1106 
Hawks    v.    Truesdell,    99   Mass. 

557, 
Hawlev  v.  Dawson,  16  Ore.  344,  S. 

C.  18  Pac.  R.  592, 
Hawley  v.  Heyman,  28  La.  Ann. 

347, 
Hawlev  v.  Hodge,  7  Vt.  237, 
Hawley  v.  Hunt,  27  la.  303,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  R.  273, 
Hawlev  v.  James,  7  Paiare  213, 
Haws  V.  Clark,  37  la.  3o5,         142, 155 
Hawse  v.  Burgmire,  4  Col.  313,       373' 
Hawthorn  v.  St.  Louis,  11  Mo.  59, 

S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec.  141,  472 

Haxton  v.  McClaren,  132  Ind.  235, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  48,  1081 

Hayburn's  Case,  2  Dallas  409,         212 
Hayden  v.   Bucklin,  9  Paige  (N. 

Y.)  512,  499 

Havden  v.  Thrasher,  28  Fla.  162, 

9  So.  R.  855,  499 

Havden  v.  Woods,  16  Neb.  306, 

1161,  1167 
Hayden  v.  Yale,  45  La.  Ann.  — 

S.  C.  12  So.  R.  633,  281 

Hayes  v.  Caldwell,  5  Gilm.  33,      1188 
Hayes  y.  Cheatham, 6  Lea(Tenn.) 

1, 
Hayes  v.  Goodwin,  4  Metc.(Ky.) 

80, 
Hayes  v.  Hayes,  8  La.  Ann.  468, 
Hayes  v.  Kenyon,  7  R.  I.  531, 
Hayes  v.  Leton,  5  Fed.  R.  521, 
Haves  v.  IMass.  Mutual  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  1  L.  R.  .V.  303. 
Haves  v.  Michigan  Central  R.  R. 

Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  228, 
Hayes  v.  Shattuck,  21  Cal.  51, 
Haves  v.  Solomon,  90  Ala.  520,  S. 

C.  7  So.  R.  921, 
Hayes  v.  Sykes.  120  Ind.  180, 
Haves  v.  The  ^lassachusetts,  etc. 

Co.,  125  111.  626,  S.  C.   1  Lawv 

R.  Anno.  303. 
Havues    v.    Aultman.   etc.,    Co., 

(Neb.)  54  N.  W.  R.  511, 


807 

375 

230 

1166 

491 

526 

535 
603 

1078 
233 


394 
485 


CXXXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Bejerences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Haynes  v.  Backman  (Cal.)  ,31  Pac. 

E.  746,  184 

Havnes  v.  Boardmaii,  HI)  Mass. 

414,  371 

Havnes  v.  Cape  May,  52  N.  J.  L. 

ISO,  1134 

Haynes  v.  Havnes,  33  Ohio  St. 

598,  '  532 

Haynes  v.  Hazelrigg,  1  Tenn.  242,  480 
Haynes  v.  Schwartz  Co.,  5  Wash. 

433,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  220,  1136 

Haynes  v.  Thorn,  28  N.  H.  386,  402 
Havnes  v.   Union,    etc.,    Co.,  35 

Neb.  766,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  979,  485 
Havnie  v.  Johnson,  71  Ind.  394,  1143 
Hays's  Appeal,  123  Pa.  St.  110,  S. 

C.  16  Atl.  300,  305 

Hays  V.  Anderson,  57  Ala.  374,  472 
Haysv.  Farwell  (Kan.)  35  Pac.  R. 

79,  1075 

Hays  V.  Hays,  64  N.  Car.  59,  200 

Haysv.  Havs,  1  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

402,  "  539 

Hays  V.  Hynds,  28  Ind.  531,  511 

Hays  V.  Hostetter,  125  Ind.  60,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  134,  1108 

Havs  V.  May,  1  J.J.  Marsh.  497,  1187 
Hays  V.  McNealy,  16  Fla.  409,  337 
Hays  V.  Miller,  1  Wash.  Ter.  163,  190 
Hays  V.  Morgan,  87  Ind.  231,  174,  633 
Hays  V.  Walker,  90  Ind.  105,  1168 
Hayward  v.  Calhoun,  2  Ohio  St. 

164,  _  657 

Hayward  v.  Knapp,  22  Minn.  5,  815 
Hayward  v.  Munger,  14  la.  516,  403 
Hayward  v.  Ormsbee,  7  Wis.  Ill, 

1160 
Haywood  v.  Collins,  60  111.  328,  452 
Havwood  V.  Reed,  4  Gray  (Mass.) 

574,  807 

Haywood  v.  Russell,  44  Mo.  252,  450 
Hazard  v.  Durant,  14  R.  I.  25,  190 
Hazard  v.Loring,  10  Cush.  (Mass.) 

267,  401,  404 

Hazard  v.  Wason,  152  Mass.  268, 

S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  465, 

609,  610,  637,  6,38,  639 
Hazeltine  v.  Case,  46  AVis.  391,  559 
Hazeltine  v.  Smith,  3  Vt.  535,  593 
Hazen  v.  Emerson,  9  Pick.  144,  475 
Haze  well  v.  Coursen,  81  N.  Y.  630, 

1143,  1207 
Hazlehurst  v.  Morris,  28  Md.  67,  1182 
Heacock  v.  Lubukee,  108  111.  641,  .32 
Head  v.  Merrill,  34  Me.  586,  473 

Heady  v.  Vevay,  Mt.  S.  &  V.  Tp. 

Co.,   52  Ind.  117,  813 

Healey,  In  re,  53  Vt.  694,  S.  C.  38 

Am.  R.  713,  457 

Heap  v.  Parrish,  104  Ind.  36,  544 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Heard  v.  Lodge,  20  Pick.  53,  S.  C. 

32  Am.  DecT  197,  396,  397 

Heard  v.  Ritchey,  112  Mo.  516,  S. 

C.  20  S.  W.  R.  799,  1025 

Hearn  v.  City  of  Greensburgli,  51 

Ind.  119,  654 

Hearn  v.  Crutcher,  4  Yerg.  461,  197 
Hearne  v.  Erhard,  33  Tex.  60,  1192 
Heath  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  9  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  316,  459 

Heath  v.  Kent,  etc.,  37  Mich.372,  118 
Heath's  Will,  In  re,  83  la.  215,  S. 

C.  48N.W.  R.  1037,  206 

Heaton  v.  Peterson,  6  Ind.App.l, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  1133,  1200 

Hecht  v.Colquhoun,  57  Md.  563,  1178 
Heckman  v.  O'Neal,  10  Cal.  292,  241 
Heddens  v.  Younglove,   46   Ind. 

212,  392 

Hedderich  v.  State,  101  Ind.  564,  120 
Hedge  v.  Clapp,  22  Conn.  262,  800 
Hedges  v.  Dam,  72  Cal.  520,  S.  C. 

14  Pac.  R.  133,  528 

Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.R.  Co., 

49  N.  Y.  223,  553 

Hedrick  v.  Judy,  23  Ind.  548,  594 

Hedrick  v.  D.  M.  Osborne  Co.,  99 

Ind.  143,  20 

Heffnerv.  Moist,40  Ohio  St.  112,  1161 
Hefter  v.  Cahn,  73  111.  296,  567 

Hegarty's  Appeal,  75  Pa. St.  503,  263 
Hegler  v.  Faulkner,  127  U.S.482,  332 
Heighway  v.  Pendleton,  15  Ohio 

735  434 

Heilman  v.  Shanklin,  60  Ind.424,  675 
Pleil's  Appeal,  40  Pa.  St.  453,  S. 

C.  80  Am.  Dec.  590,  1190 

Heiman   v.  Western  Union  Tel. 

Co.,  57  Wis.  562,  412 

Hekla  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schroeder,  9  111. 

App.  472,  377 

Helena  v.  Albertose,  8  Mont.499,  712 
Helm  V.  Boone,  6  J.  J.  Marsh  351, 

S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  75,  254,  492 

Helm  v.  Yerger,  61  Miss.  44,  377 

Helms  V.  Chadbourne,  45  Wis.60,  610 
Helms  v.  Green,  105  N.  Car.  251, 

S.  C.  18  Am.  St.  R.  893,        515,  796 
Helms  v.  Wagner,  102  Ind.  385, 

1151,  1219 
Helphrey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  29  la. 

480,  400 

Ileltzell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.R. Co., 

77  Mo.  315,  440 

Ilemmer  v.Wolfer,  124  111.  435,  S. 

C.  11  N.  E.  R.  885,  4.36,  439 

Ileniminway  v.  Davis,  24  Ohio  St. 

1.50,  138 

Hemphill  v.  Morrison,  112  N.Car. 

756,  S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  535,  1219 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


CXXXlll 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Henderson,  Ex  parte,  6  Fla.  279, 

124,  178 
Henderson,  Ex  parte,  84  Ala.  3G, 

S.  C.  4  So.  R.  284,  187,  1242 

Henderson  v.  Beaton,  52  Tex.  2'J,  116 
Henderson   v.  Carbondale,    etc., 

Co.,  140  U.  S.  25,  S.  C.   11  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  691,  611 

Henderson  v.  Cass  Co.,  107  ^lo. 

50,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  992,  400 

Henderson    v.    Dickev,    76    Ind. 

264,  '  1104 

Henderson  v.  Henderson,  3  Hare 

100,  1176 

Henderson  v.  Pope,  39  Ga.  361,  236 
Henderson  v.  Moss,  82  Tex.  69, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  555,  1177 

Henderson  v.  Staniford,  105  Mass. 

504,  276 

Henderson  v.  State,  1  Tex.  App. 

432,  801 

Henderson    v.    Three     Hundred 

Tons  of  Iron  Ore,  38  Fed.  R. 

36,  388 

Henderson  v. Underwriters  Ass'n, 

65  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  732,  571 

Hendriek    v.     Whittemore,     105 

Mass.  23,  158,  427 

Hendricks  v.  State,  26  Ind.  493,  31 
Henlein   v.  Graham,  32  S.    Car. 

303,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  1012,  192 

Henline  v.  People,  81  111.  269,  324 
Hennessy  v.  Bacon,  137  U.  S.  78,  566 
Henney,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Patt,  73  la. 

485,  474 

Plenning  v.  State,  106  Ind.  386, 

544,  1218 
Hennies  v.  Vogel,  87  111.  242,  S. 

C.  7  Cent.  L.  Jour.  18,  820 

Henning  v.  Western  Union,  etc., 

Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  864,  1162 

Henri   v.  Grand   Lodge,  etc.,  59 

Mo.  581,  1135,  1138 

Henrv  v.  Patterson,  57  Pa.  St.  346,  567 
Henry  v.  Root,  33  N.  Y.  526,  382 

Henry  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  76  Mo.  288,  534 

Henry   v.   Sioux   City,   etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  70  la.  233,  820 

Hensley  v.  :\Iorgan,  47  Cal.  622,  470 
Hensley  v.  Rose.  7(i  .\la.  373,  455 

Hcuslev's  Adm'rsv.  Lvtle,5  Tex. 

497,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  741,  622 

Hentig  v.  Page,  102  U.  S.  219,  1187 
Hentig  v.  Redden,  46  Kan.  231, 

S.  C.  26Am.  R.  91,  300.1176 

Hepburn  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  2  La. 

Ann.  1007,  918 

Hepfel  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

49  Minn .  263, 51  N.  W.  R.  1049,     546 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.} 
Herhet  v.   Hagenaers,   137  N.  Y. 

290,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  315,  594,  600 
Herkimer  v.  McCiregor,  126  Ind. 

247,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  44, 

1162,  1164 
Herman  v.  Dunbar,  23  Beav.  312,  498 
Hermann  v.  Orcutt,  152  Mass.  405, 

S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  735,  570 

Hermannes  v.  Simons,  2  Cal.  464,  256 
Herndon  v.  Hawkins,  65  Mo.  265,  155 
Heroman  v.  Louisiana  Inst.  34  La. 

Ann.  805,  294 

Herpel  v.  Malone,  56  Mich.  199,  533 
Herrick  v.  Butler,  30  Minn.  156, 

S.  C.  14  N.  W.  R.  794,  319,  320 

Herrick  v.  iVIorrill,  37  ]VIinn.  250, 

S.  C.  5  Am.  State  R.  841,  433 

Herrick  v.  Swondey,  56  Ind.  439,  783 
Herrington  v.  McCollum,  73  111. 

476,  500 

Herron  v.  Dibrell,  87  Va.  289,  S. 

C.  12  S.  E.  R.  674,  544 

Ilernsheim  v.  Levy,  32  La.  Ann. 

340,  465 

Hershman  v.  Hershman,  63  Ind. 

451,  1155 

Herver    v.    Rhode    Island,    etc.. 

Works,  93  U.  S.  664,  302 

Hess  V.  Dean,  66  Tex.  663,  234 

Hess  V.  Hess,  119  Ind.  66,  1170 

Hess  V.  Lowrey,  122  Ind.  225,  S.C. 

7  L.  R.  A.  90,  810 

Iless  V.  Powell,  29  Mo.  App.  411,  413 
Hess  V.  White,  9  Utah  61,  S.  C. 

33  Pac.  R.  243,  1127 

Hesse  v.  Mann,  40  Wis.  560,  1189 

Heshion  v.  Pressley,  80  Ind.  490,  (HO 
Hester  v.    Chambers,   Judge,   84 

Mich.  562,  S.C.  48  N.W.  R''.  152,  661 
Hestres  v.Clements,  21  Cal.  425,  1197 
Hewes  v.  Andrews,  12  Col.  161.  621 
Hewett  V.  Dean,  91  Cal.  5,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  423,  412 

Hewitt  V.  FuruKin,  Iti  Serg.  «.^  R. 

(Pa.)  135,  597 

He\vitt  V.  Steele,  118  Mo.  — ,  S. 

C.  24  S.  W.  R.  440,  1067 

Hewitt  V.  Weatherbv,  57  Mo.  276,  438 
Hewlett  V.  George,  68  :\Iiss.  703, 

S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  682,  512 

Hewlett  V.  Wood.  55  N.  Y.  634,  739 
Hev  V.  Commonwealth.  52  Gratt. 

(Va.)  946,  695,  697 

Hevdenfeldt   v.   Towns,   27   Ala. 

423,  217 

Hevl  V.  State,  109  Ind.  589,  821,  1076 
HeVne  v.  Blair,  62  N.  Y.  19,  553 

Hevneman  v.  Blake,  19  Cal.  579,  1129 
Heacock  v.  Lubuke,  107  111.  396,  668 
Heacock  v.  State,  13Tex,  App.  97,    655 


CXXXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Head  v.  Bridges,  07  Ga.  227,  1064 

Heail  V.  Langworthy,  15  la.  235,     1061 
Healev  v.  Simpson,  113  Mo.  340, 

S.  C.  20  S.  \V.  K.  881,  1027 

Healev   v.   Isaacs,    73    Ind.   226, 

576,  599 
Hearn  v.  State,  62  Ala.  218,  321 

Heath's  Will,  In  re,  83  la.  215,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  1037,  565 

Heath  v.  Conwav,  1  Bibb.  398,      1119 
Heath  v.  Hall,  60  111.  344,  412 

Heath  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  83 

:\Io.  617,  410 

Heath  v.  State,  101  Ind.  512,  1217 

Heathcote  v.  Wing,  11  Exch.  355,     189 
Heddles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

77  Wis.  228,  S.  C.  20  Am.   St. 

R.  106,  799 

Heddles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  74 

Wis.  239,  802 

Hedrick  v.  Hedrick,  28  Ind.  291,     1239 
Heffron  v.  State,  8  Fla.  73,  669 

Hegeler  V.  Henckell,  27  Cal.  491,       191 
Heine  v.  Levee   Commissioners, 

19  Wall.  655,  212 

Heinlen  v.  Cross,  63  Cal.  44,  492 

Heinsen  v.  Lamb,  117  111.  549,       1051 
Helm  V.  Gilroy,  20  Ore.  517,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  851,  480 

Helm's  Exec.  v.  Rogers,  81  Ky. 

568,  373 

Helms  V.   Chadbourne,   45  Wis. 

60,  443 

Heltonville    Mfg.   Co.   v.    Fields 

(Ind.),  36N.  E.  R.  529,  1096 

Hemingway     v.     Barnham,     90 

Mich.   227,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R. 

276,  1090 

Hemmens  v.  Bentley,  32  Mich. 

89,  143,  790 

Hemmens  v.  Nelson,  138  N.  Y. 

517,  S.  C.  20  L.  R.  A.  440,  1041 

Hemmer  v.  Wolfer,  124  111.  435, 

S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  885,  440 

Henderson,  Ex  parte,  84  Ala.  .36, 

S.  C.  4  So.  R.  284,  _         607 

Henderson   v.    Brown,    1   Caines 

(N.  Y.)  92,  427 

Henderson    v.    Buckley,    14     B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  292,  592 

Henderson  v.  Griffin,  5  Pet.  151, 

371,  1048 
Henderson      v.      Henderson,     3 

Hare's  Ch.  100,  300 

Henderson  v.  Jones,  10  Serg.  & 

R.  (Pa.)  322,  806 

Henderson  v.  Mears,  1  Frost.  & 

F.  636,  544 

Henderson  v.  Pope,  39  Ga.  361, 

226.  1241 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'\ 
Henderson  v.  Thornton,  37  Miss. 

448,  S.  C.  75  Am.  Dec.  70,  464 

Hendrick  v.  Clouts,  91  Ga.  196,  S, 

C.  17  S.  E.  R.  119,  1040 

Hendrick     v.     Whittemore,     105 

Mass.  23,  320 

Hendrix    v.    Cawthorn,    71    Ga, 

742,  457,  462 

Hendry  v.  Hendry,  32  Ind.  349, 

1211,  1214 
Henlev  v.  Arbuckle,  13  Mo.  209,  1103 
Henley  v.  Sofer,  8  Barn.  &  C.  16,  581 
Henline  v.  People,  81  111.  269,  134, 165 
Hennies  v.  Vogel,  87  111.  242,  692 

Henning  v.  State,   24  Tex.   App. 

315,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  137,  1224 

Henning  v.  State,  106  Ind.  386,  S. 

C.  55  Am.  R.  756,  234,  1220 

Henry  v.  Basse tt,  75  Mo.  89,  558 

Henry  v.  Carson,  96  Ind.  412, 

129,  336,  339 
Henry  v.  Central.  R.  R.  Co.,  89 

Ga.  815,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  757,     1043 
Henry  v.  Dean,  6  Dak.  78,  712 

Henry  v.  Harbison,  23  Ark.  25,      396 
Henslie  v.  State,  3  Heisk.(Tenn.) 

202,  164 

Henthorn  v.  Doe,  1  Blackf.  157,     508 
Hepburn    v.    Griswold,    8  Wall. 

604,  1192 

Hepburn  v.  Jones,  4  Col.  98,  592 

Herbert  v.  Butler,  97  U.  S.  319,     1041 
Herbert  v.  Dufur,  23  Ore.  462,  S. 

C.  32  Pac.  R.  302,  1042 

Herbster  v.  State,  80  Ind.  484,        228 
Herd  v.  Cist  (Ky.),  20  S.  W\  R. 

1035,  607 

Ilerdic  v.  Bilger,  47  Pa.  St.  60,       1067 
Herff  V.  Griggs,  121  Ind.  471,  S. 

C.  23  N.  E.  R.  279,  281 

Herman  v.  Jeffries,  4  Mont.  513,     1227 
Hernandez  v.  James,  23  La.  Ann. 

483,  155 

Ilerndon  v.  Wood,  2  A.  K.  Mar. 

(Ky.)  44,  371 

Ilering  v.Chambers,103  Pa.St.l72,  450 
Herr  v.  Denver,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Col. 

406,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  Anno.  641,  34 

Herrick  v.  Belknap,  27  Vt.  673,      201 
Herring  v.  State,  1  la.  205,  1233 

Hersom  v.  Henderson,  23  N.  H. 

498,  781 

Herver  v.  Champion,  11  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  569,  468 

Hervey  v.  Edens,  69  Tex.  420,  S. 

C.  6  S.  AV.  R.  306,  504 

Hervey  v.  Edmunds,  68  N.  Car. 

243,  155 

Heshion  v.  Pressley,  80  Ind.  490, 

230,  629 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


CXXXV 


550 
778 


346 


547 

807 

1205 

1197 

"  403 
1213 


379 

34 

375 

257 


Hicks  V 
Hicks  V 
Hicks  V 

375,  "798 

Hidden  v.  Jordan.  28  Cal.  301,      1144 
Hidell  V.  Dwinell,  89  Ga.  532,  S. 

C.  IBS.  E.  R.  79,  520 

Higbe  V.  Leonoard.  1  Denio  186,     224 
HigVnv.  Ayres,  14  Kan.  331,  235 

Higdon  V.    Iligdon,  (>  J.  J.  Mar. 

48,  -  1128 

Higgins  V.  Armstrong,  9  Col.  39, 


{^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  J,  pp 
Hess  V.  Cole,  23  N.  .1.  L.  116,  189 

Hess  V.  Frankentield,  106  I'a.  St. 

440, 
Hess  V.  Lowrey,  122  Ind.  225,  S. 

C.  7  L.  K.  A.  90,  518, 

Hessey  v.  Heitkainp,  9  Mo.  App. 

36, 
Hessing  v.  Wihnington,  etc.,   R. 

R.  Co.,  10  Ired.  L.  402,  S.  C.  51 

Am.  Dec.  395, 
Hester  v.  Com.,  85  Pa.  St.  139, 
Hesties  v.  Brennan,  50  Cal.  210, 
Hewett  V.  Cobb,  40  Miss.  61, 
Hewett  V.  Fenstaniaker,  128  Ind 

315, 
Hewitt  V.  Brown,  21  Minn.  163, 
Hewitt  V.  Powers,  84  Ind.  295, 

300,  998,  1212 
Hewitt  V.    Steele,  118  Mo.  — ,  S. 

C.  24  S.  W.  R.  440,  1066 

Hewlett  V.  Schenck,82N.Car.234,  382 
Hexterv.  Schneider,  14  Ore.  184,  178 
Pliawatha  Tp.  v.  Sciioolcraft  Cir. 

Judge,  90  Mich.  270,  S.  C.  51  N. 

W.  K.  282,  1202 

Hibberd  v.  Smith,  67  Cal.  547,  560 
Hibernia  Bank  v.  Lacombe,  84  N. 

Y.  367,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  518,         302 
Hibernia  Fire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 93  Pa.  St.  264,  546 
Hibernia,  etc.,  Soc.  v.  Moore,  68 

Cal.  156,  1169 

Hibler  v.  Shipp,  78  Ky.  64,  1180 

Hickenbotham  v.  Blackledge,  54 

111.  316,  443 

Hickenbottom  v.  Delaware,  etc., 

Co.,  122  N.  Y.  91,  112,  1075 

Hickev  v.  Forristal,  49  111.  255,  436 
Hickev  v.  Rvan,  15  Mo.  62,  525 

Hicklin  v.  MeClear,  18  Ore.  126, 

S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  1057,  1142 

Hickman  v.  Citv  of   Fort  Scott, 

141  U.  S.  415,  ■  188,  1202 

Hickman  v.  Cruise,  72  la.  528.      1056 
Hickman  v.  Jones,  9  AVall.  197,      115 
Hicks  V.  Blanchard,  60  Vt.  673, 
Hicks  V.  Davis,  4  Cal.  67, 
,  Hicks.  3  East  16, 
:\richael,  15  Cal.  107, 
State  (Ala.),  13  So.  Rep 


S.  C.  10  Pac.  R.  232 


112  I 


,  1-fJO:^,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Higgins  V.  Beckwith,  102  Mo.  456, 

S.  C.  14  S.  \V.  R.  931, 

320,  604,  613,  614 
Higgins  V.  Carlton,  28  M<1.  115,  800 
Higgins  V.  Commonwealth  (Ky.), 

21  S.  W.  R.  231,  630 

Higgins  V.  Kendall,  73  Ind.  522,  1162 
Higgins  V.  .Mctlrea,  116  U.  S.671,  536 
Higgins  V.  Minaghan,  78  \Vis.602, 

S.  C.  11  L.  I{.  A.  138,  663 

Higgins  V.  Peltzer,  49  Mo.  152,  245 
Higgins  V.  Ransdall,  13  Mo.  205,  152 
Higgins  V.  Reed,  8  la.  298,  502 

Higgins  V.  Reed,  48  Kan.  272,  S. 

C.  29  Pac.  R.  389,  263 

Higgins  V.  State,  87  Ind.  282,  393 

High  V.  Bank,  95  Cal.  386,  S.  C. 

30  Pac.  R.  556,  528 

High  V.  Boar.l,  92  Ind.  580,  360,  392 
Highfill  V.  Monk,  81  Ind.  203,  1207 
Highley  v.  Lant,  3  Mich.  612,  558 

Ilighlev  V.  Pollock(Nev.),  27  Pac. 

R.  895,  431 

Hildreth  v.  Aldrich,  15  R.  I.  163,  795 
Hildreth  v.  City  of  Trov,  101  N. 

Y.  234,  '  654 

Hildreth  v.  Hough,  20  111.  331,        432 
llildreth's  Heirs  v.  Mclntires  De- 
visee, 1  J.  J.  Marsh.  206,  S.  C. 

19Am.  Dec.  61,  116,120 

Hileman  v.  Hileman,  85  Ind.  1,  372 
Hilgenberg  v.  Northup,  134  Ind. 

92,  1109,  1151 

Hill  V.  Rarnev,  18  X.  H.  607,  173 

Hill  V.  Cantiold,  56  Pa.  St.  454,  1066 
Hill  V.  Chijiman.  59  Wis.  211,  1208 
Hill  V.  Clark,  51  Ga.  122,  619 

Hill  V.  Corcoran,  15  Col.  270,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  171,  658 

Hill  V.  Covell,  1  N.  Y.  522,  526,  1103 
Hill  V.  Cunningham,  25  Tex.  25,  436 
Hill  V.  Denslinger.  61  la.  240,  1159 
Hill  V.  Faison,  27  Tex.  428,  449 

Ilill  V.  Goode,  18  Ind.  207,  796 

Hill  V.  Gust.  55  Ind.  45.  800 

Hill  V.  Ilasanian.  84  Ind.  287,  1227 
Hill  V.  Harding,  93  111.  77.  469 

Hill  V.  Hollowav,  52  la.  678,  1235 

Hill   V.    Hoover,   5   Wis.   386, 

190,452,  1244 
Hill,  In  re,  6  Ct.  of  CI.  83,  736 

Hill  V.  Jamieson,  16  Ind.  125,  1233 
Hill  V.  La  Crosse,  etc.Co.,  14  Wis. 

291 ,  197 

Hill  V.  Mason.  7  Jones  (N.  C.)  551,  34 
Hill  V.  Mendenhall.  21  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  453,  605 

Hill  V.  Newman.  47  Ind.  187,  1210 
Hill  V.  Nichols,  50  Ala.  336.  1071 

Hill  V.  Nisbet,  100  Ind.  341,  514 


CXXXYl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Hill  V.  People,  20  N.  Y.  363,  644 

Hill  V.  People,  16  Mich.  451,  643 

Hill  V.  Perrv,  82  Ind.  28,  680 

Hill  V.  Phillips,  14  R.  I.  93,  382 

Plill  V.  Probst,  120  Ind.  528,  134 

Hill  V.  Kailroad  Co.,  14  Wis.  291, 

S.C.  80  Am.  Dec.  783,  471 

Hill  V.  Roach,  72  Ind.  57,  1166,  1182 
Hill  V.  Rucker,  14  Ark.  706,  1051 

Hill  V.  Shalter,  73  Ind.  459,  409 

Hill  V.  State,  17  Wis.  697,  33 

Hill  V.  State,  64  Ga.  453,  1112 

Hill  V.  Taylor,  50  Mich.  549,  S.C. 

15  N.  W.  R.  899,  304 

Hill  V.  Taylor,  15  Wis.  190,  592 

Hill  V.  AVells,  6  Pick.  104,  220 

Hill  V.  AVeisler,  49  Cal.  146,  1164, 1165 
Hill  V.  West  End  Street  R.  R.  Co., 

158  Mass.  458,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R. 

582  795 

Hill  V.  Whitney,  16  Yt.  461,  470 

Hiller  v.  English,  4  Strobh.  L.  (S. 

Car.)  486,  1111 

Hilliard  v.  Beattie,  59  N.  H.  462,  697 
Hilliard  v.  Binford,  10  Ala.  977,  263 
Hilliard  v.  Carr,  6  Ala.  557,  605 

Hilliard  v.  Connelly,  7  Ga.  172,  117 
Hilliard  v.  Wilson,  76  Tex.  180,  S. 

C.  13  S.  W.  R.  25,  313 

Hillistaid  v.  Hostetter,  46  Minn. 

393,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  192,  720 

Hills  V.  Ludwig,  46  Ohio  St.  373, 

S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  596,  1079 

Hills  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  129  Mass. 

345,  591 

Hills  V.  Moore,  40  Mich.  210,  469 

Hills  V.  New  York  Exchange  Bank, 

105  U.  S.  319,  404 

Hills  V.  Parker,  111  Mass.  508,  410 
Hills  V.  Place,  48  N.  Y.  520,  402 

Himmelman    v.   Henry,   84   Cal. 

104,  1147 

Hinchman  v.  Lincoln,  124  U.  S. 

Hinckley  v.Gilman,  94 U.S.  467,  1181 
Hinckley  v.  Ilorazdowski,  133  111. 

359,  S.  C.  8  L.  R.  A.  490,  1060 

Hinds  V.  Harbou,  58  Ind.  121,  1068 
Hindrev  v.  Williams,  9  Col.  371, 

S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  436,  1112 

Hine  v.  Bowe,  114  N.  Y.  350,  S.  C. 

21  N.  E.  R.  733,  542 

Hine  v.  Hnssey,  45  Ala.  496,  218 

Hine  v.  Stephens,  33  Conn.  497, 

S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  217,  582 

Hineman  v.  Matthews,  138  Pa.  St. 

204,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  233,  1041 

Hines  v.  Driver,  100  Ind.  315, 

622,  1160,  1182 
Hines  v.  Mullins,  25  Ga.696,    300,  345 


7-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Hinkle,  In  re,  31  Kan.  712,  217 

Hinkle  v.  Margerum,  50  Ind.240,  1164 
Hinkley  v. Walters,  8  Watts  (Pa.) 

260,  375 

Hinson  v.  Adrian,  91  N.Car.  372,  255 
Hinson  v.  Catoe,  10  S.  Car.  311,  1162' 
Hinton    v.    Cream    City   Co.,   65 

Wis.  323,  824 

Hinton  v.Whittaker,101  Tnd.344,  718 
Hintrager  v.  Mahoney,  78  la.  537, 

S.  C.  43  N.W.  R.  522,  S.  C.  6  L. 

R.  A.50,  1137 

Hintz  V.  Graupner,  138  111.  158,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  935,  704,  705 

Hinzie  v.  Kempner,  82  Tex.  617, 

S.  C.  18S.W.R.  659,  1202 

Hipes  V.  Cochran,  13  Ind.  175,  508 
Hipes  V.  State,  73  Ind.  39,  164 

Hipp  V.  Babin,  19  How.  271,  262 

Hipp  V.  Ingram,  3  Tex.  17,  1169 

Hirsh  V.  Clawson,  106  Ind.  329,  1195 
Hirsh  v.Whitehead,65N.Car.516,  488 
Hitchcock   V.    Burgett,  38  Mich. 

501,  740 

Hitchcock  V.  Moore,  70  Mich. 112, 

S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  474,  782 

Hite  V.  Hunton,  20  Mo.  286,  1208 

Hite  V.  Wilson,  2  H.  &  M.  (Va.) 

268,  1116,  1154 

Hittson  V.  Davenport,  4  Col.  169,  1192 
Hix  V.  Drury,  5  Pick.  296,  1124 

Hixon  V.  Oneida  Co.,  82  Wis.515, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  445,  484 

Hoadley  v.  San  Francisco,  50  Cal. 

265,  366 

Hoag  V.  Hoag,  55  N.  H.  172,  471 

Hoag  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  85  Pa.  St.  293,  547 

Hoagland  v.  Creed,  81  111.  506, 

115,  217.  226 
Hoagland  v.  Way,  35  Neb.  387,  S. 

C.  53  N.  W.  R.  207,  1201 

Hoback  v.  Com.,  28  Gratt.   (Va.) 

922,  1114 

Hobart  v.  Conn.   Turnp.  Co.,  15 

Conn.  145,  361 

Hobart  v.  Hobart,  45  la.  501,  116,  242 
Hobart  College  v.  Fitzhugh,  27  N. 

Y. 130,  1137 

Hobbs  V.  Campbell,  79  Tex.  360,  S. 

C.  15  S.  W.  R.  282,  224 

Hobbs  V.  State,  133  Ind.  404,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  1019,  S.  C.  18  L.  R. 

A.  774,  806 

Hobby  V.  Bunch,  83  Ga.  1,  S.  C. 

20  Am.  St.  R.  301,  439,452 

Hoberg  v.  State,  3  Minn.  262,  1077 
Hobson  V.  Ewan,  62  111.  146,  427 

Hobson  V.  Peake,  44  La.  Ann.  383, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  762,  320 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXVIL 


\^Iteferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Hocklander  V.  Hocklander,  73  111. 

618,  432,  456 

Hodde  V.  Susan,  58  Tex.  389,  220 

Hodgden    v.    Commissioners,   10 

Kan.  637,  1227 

Hodge  V.    First    Nat.    Bank,   22 

Gratt.  51,  1138 

Hodge  V.  Giese,  43  N.  J.  E(i.  342,  478 
Hodge  V.  Ludlum,  45  Minn.  290, 

S.  0.  47  N.  W.  R.  805,  1106 

Hodge  V.  State,  26  Fla.  11,  S.  C.  7 

So.  R.  598,  662 

Hodge  V.  State,  85  Ind.  561,  1059 

Hodges,  Ex  parte,  59  Ala.  305,  631 
Hodges  V.  Bales,  102  Ind.  494.  806 
Hodges  V.  Brett,  4  Green    (la.) 

345,  456 

Hodges  V.  Bullock,  15  R.  I.  592,  354 
Hodges  V.  Cooper,  43  N.  Y.  216,  1064 
Hodges  V.  Kowing,  58  Conn.  12,  481 
Hodges  V.  State,  22  Tex.  App.415, 

S.  C.  3   S.  W.  R.   739,  S.  C.  9 

Crim.  L.  lAIag.  603,  1075 

Hodges  V.  Tavlor    (Ark.),  13   S. 

W.  R.  129,    '  382 

Hodges  V.  Ward,  1  Tex.  244,  142 

Hodgkins  v.  Mead,  119  X.  Y.  166, 

S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  559^         1122,  1124 
Hodgkins  v.  Mead,  5  N.  Y.  Supp. 

433,  1117 

Hodgkins  v.  State,  89  Ga.  761,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E.  Rep.  695,  820 

Hodgson  V.  Bowerbank,  5  Cranch 

303,  256 

Hoeflinger  v.   Stafford,   38  Wis. 

391,  1041,1055 

Hoen  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

64  Mo.  561,  441 

Hoev  V.  Coleman,  46  Fed.  R.  221,  483 
Hoev  V.  Natick,  153  Mass.  528,  S. 

C."27  N.  E.  R.  595,  549 

Hoev  V.  Pierron,  67  Wis.  262,  1183 
Hoffield   V.  Board,  33    Kan.  644, 

S.  C.  7  Pac.  R.  216,  430 

Hoffman  v.  Bosch,  18  Nev.  360,  1160 
Hoffman  v.  Harrington,  28  Mich. 

90,  243 

Hoffman  v.  Hoffman,  26  N.  J.  L. 

175,  591,  598 

Hoffman  v.  Hoffman,  46  N.Y.  30,  287 
Hofferbert  v.  Klinkhardt,  56  111. 

450,  1192 

Hoffman  v.  Sparling,  12  Hun.  (N. 

Y.)  83,  632 

Hoffman  v.  Van  Dieman,  62  Wis. 

362,  402 

Hogan  V.  Kurtz.  94  U.  S.  773,  371,  380 
Hogan  V.  Northfield  56  Vt.  721,  719 
Hogan  V.  Shuart,  11    Mont.  498, 

ST  C.  28  Pac.  R.  969,  1068 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Hogele   V.  Wilson,  5   Wash.   St. 

160,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  469,  1041 

Hogg   V.  Jackson  (Md.),  26  Atl. 

R.  869,  1081 

Hogg  V.  Kirby,  8  Vesey  215,  485 

Hogg  V.  State,  7  Ind.  551,  1077 

Hoghtaling  v.  Osborn,  15  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  119,  nil 

Hogle  V.  Mutt,  62  Vt.  255,  S.  C.  22 

Am.  S  .  Rep.  106,  444 

Iloguet  V.  Wallace,  28  N.  J.  L. 

523,  311,  1198 

Ilohorst    V.    Hamburg-American 

Packet  Co.,  38  Fed.  Rep.  273,      613 
Holbert  v.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  219, 

S.  C.  35  Am.  R.  7.38,  805 

Holbrook  v.  Burt,  22  Pick.  (Mass.) 

546,  556 

Holbrook  v.  Connelly,  6  Ohio  St. 

199,  1199 

Holbrook  v.  Holbrook,  15  Me.  9,  395 
Holl)rook  V.  McBride,4  Gray  215,  705 
Holbrook  v.  Sims,  39  Minn.  122, 

S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.  74,  529 

Holbrook  v.  Waters,  19  Pick.  354,  476 
Holcomb  V.  Holcomb,  95  N.  Y, 

316,  518 

Holden   V.   Haserodt,  2  S.  Dak. 

— ,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  97,  228 

Holden  v.  James,  11  :\Iass.  396,  121 
Holderman     v.    Thompson,     105 

Ind.  112,  S.  C.  5  N.  E.  R.  175,      341 
Holdridge  v.  Lee  (S.  Dak.),  52  N. 

W.  Rep.  265,  783 

Holdrodge   v.  Stowell,  39   Minn. 

360,  S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R.  259,  576 

Holdsworth  v.  Tucker,  147  Mass. 

572,  1168,  1181 

Holker  v.  Parker,  7  Cranch.  436, 

206,  207,  565,  582 
Holland  v.  Challen,  110  U.  S.  15, 

270,  275 
V.   Hatch,   15  Ohio  St. 

1046 
:.  Johnson,  SO  Mo.  34.  629 
V.  Leslie,  2  Harr.  (Del.) 


Holland 

464, 
Holland 
Holland 

306, 
Holland  V.  West  End  St.  Rv.  Co. 

155  Mass.  387,  S.  C.  29  N."  E.  R 

622, 
HoUenbeck  v.  Rowlev,  8  Allen 

(:\Iass.)  473. 
Hollidav  V.  Brown.  50  N.  W.  R 

1042. ' 
Hollidav  V. 
Hollidav  V. 
Hollidav  v. 
Hollidav  V. 
Hollidav  V. 

103, 


Cohen.  34  Ark.  707, 
Cooper.  3  Mo.  286, 
Elliott,  3  Ore.  340, 
Harvey.  39  Tex.  670. 
Henderson,  67   Ind. 


471 


548 

816 

437 
803 
432 
178 
503 

1241 


CXXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Holliday  v.  Mansker,  44  Mo.  App. 

465,  237 

Holliday  v.  Swailes,  1  Scam.  (111.) 

515,  424,  428 

Holliday  v.  Ward,  19  Pa.  St.  485,    274 
Hollingsworth  v. Barbour,  4  Peters 

(U.  S.)  466,  425,  428,  276 

Hollingsworth  v.  Leiper,  1  JDall. 

(U.  S.)  161,  592,593,579 

Hollingsworth  v.  State,  79  Ga.  605, 

S.  C.  4  S.  E.  R.  560,  791 

Hollingswortli  v.  State,  111  Ind. 

289,  429 

Virginia,  3  Dall. 


338 
WilHs,  64  Miss. 

1230,  1233 
R.  7  H.  L. 

365 
625 

183 


192 

384 

34 

1179 
226 
513 


Hollingsworth  v 

378, 
Hollingsw'orth  v 

152, 
Hollins  V.  Fowler,  L 

757 
Hollis  V.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  643, 
Hollisterv.  Giddings,  24Mich.501, 

182 

Hollister  v.  Hollister,  6  Pa.  St.  449,  509 
Holhster  V.  The  Judges,  8  Ohio  St. 

201,  S.  C.  70  Am.  Dec.  100, 
Hollister  v.  York,  59  Vt.  1, 
Holloway  v.  Galliac,  47  Cal.  474, 
Holloway  v.  Holloway,  103   Mo 

274,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  233, 
Holly  V.  Carson,  39  Ala.  345, 
Holman  v.  Bachus,  73  Mo.  49, 
Holman  v.Chevaillier,14Tex.437,  1238 
Holman  v.  Chicago, etc.,  R.R.  Co., 

62  Mo.  562, 
Holman  v.  Crane,  16  Ala.  570, 
Holman  v.  King,  7  Mete.  (Mass.) 

384, 
Holmead   v.  Corcoran,  2  Cranch 

C.  C.  119,  1124 

Holmes  v.  Anderson,  18  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  420,  799 

Holmes  v.  Braidwood,  82  Mo.610,  1081 
Holmes  v.  Campbell,  12  Minn. 221,  316 
Holmes  v.  Carlev,  31  N.  Y.  289,  311 
Holmes  v.  Corb'in,  50  Minn.  209, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  531,  622 

Holmes  v.  Davenport,  27  Abb.  N. 

Cases  75,  480 

Holmes  v.  Dobbins,.  19  Ga.  630,  620 
Holmes  v.  Eason,  76  Tenn.  754, 

216  235 
Holmes  v.  French,  68  Me.  525^  '  338 
Holmes  v.  Gavle,  1  Ala.  517, 

738,  1232 
Holmes  v.  Hinkle,  63  Ind.  518,  705 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  9  N.  Y.  525,  404 
Holmes  y.  Holmes,  12  Barb.   (N 

Y.)  137, 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  -57  Barb.  305, 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  4  Lane.  388, 


634 

537 

545 


401 

287 
287 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.'] 
Holmes,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holmes,  etc., 

53  Hun  52,  388 

Holmes  y.  Oregon,   etc.,   Co.,   7 

Saw.  380,  241 

Holmes  V.  Oregon, etc., Co.,  9  Fed. 

R.  229,  314 

Holmes  y.  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Ind.  356,  1034 

Holmes  y.  Railroad  Co.,   9  Fed. 

R.  229, 
Holmes  y.  Roper,  10  N.  Y.  Supp. 

284,  1164 

Holmes  y.  Ricket,  56  Cal.  307,  S. 

C.  38  Am.  R.  54,  589 

Holmes  y.  Russell,  9  Dowl.  487,  331 
Holmes  y.  Turner's  Falls  Co.,  150 

Mass.  535,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  Rep. 

305,  712,  1215 

Holmes  y.  Tutton,  5  El.  &  B.  65,  470 
Holohan  y.  Mix,  134  Pa.  St.  88,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  496,  536 

Holsingery.  Dunham,  11  Ind.  346,  456 
Hoist  y.  State,  23  Tex.  App.  1,  S. 

C.  59  Am.  R.  770,  520 

Holt  y.  Gage,  60  N.  H.  536,  382 

Holt  V.  Spokane,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Ida. 

— ,  S.  C.  35  Pac.  R.  39,  1066 

Holt  y.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  571,  668 
Holt  y.  State,  11  Ohio  St.  691,  177 

Holton  y.  Kemp,  81  Mo.  661,  532 

Holyoke  y.  Haskins,  5  Pick.  20, 

S.'C.  16  Am.  Dec.  372,  314 

Holzman  v.  Hibben,  100  Ind.338,  1216 
Homans  y.  Corning,  60  N.  H.  418,  739 
Home   B.  &  L.   Ass'n  v.   Kilpat- 

riek,  140  Pa.  St.  405,   S.  C.  21 

Atl.  R.  397,  537 

Home  Benefit  Ass'n  y.  Sargent, 

142  U.  S.  691,  S.  C.   12  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  332,      .  783 

Home  for  Inebriates  y.  Kaplan, 

84  Cal.  486,  S.C.  24  Pac.R.  119,     254 
Home  Ins.  Co.  y.  Duke,   75  Ind. 

535,  1209 

Home  Ins.   Co.   y.    Howard,    111 

Ind.  544,  S.  C.  13  N.  E.  R.  103,     571 
Home  Ins.  Co.  y.  Morse,  20  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  445,  588 

Home  Ins.  Co.  y.  Baltimore,  etc., 

Co.,  93  U.  S.  527,  504 

Home  Ins.    Co.   of  New  York  v. 

Stanchfield,  1  Dill.(TJ.  S.)  425,     602 
Homer  y.  Brown,  16  How.  (U.S.) 

354,  1046 

Hon  V.  Hon,  70  Ind.  135,  392 

Hone  y.  State  (Ala.),   13  So.  R. 

329,  741 

Ilony  y.  Hony,  1  Sim.  &.  Stu.568,  375 
Hood   y.    Hartshorn,    100    Mass. 

119,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  89,  589 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CXXXIX 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Hood  V.  Hood,  110  Mass.  4(«,         274 
Hood  V.  State,  5G  Ind.  203,  S.  C. 

26  Am.  R.  21,  287 

Hoodless  V.  Reid,  112  111.  105,  412 
Hoogs  V.  Morse,  31  Cal.  128,  (iOl 

Hooker  v.  State,  7  Bhukf.  272,  1081 
Hooks  V.  -Mores,  S  Ire.l.  L.  88,  336 
Hooks  V.  York,  4  Ind.  636,  198 

Hooper  V.  Hooper,  21»  \V.Va.276,  1184 
Hooper  v.  Moore,  3  Jones  L.  428,  801 
Hooper  v.  Moore,  5  Jones  L.  (N. 

Car.)  130,  545 

Hooper  v.  State,  30  Texas  412,  S. 

C.  16  S.  W.  R.  6.-W,  1224 

Hooper  V.Taylor,  39  Me.  224,  579, 594 
Hooper  v.  rVinston,  24  111.  353,  194 
Hooper  v.  Vernon,  74  Md.  136,  S. 

C.  21  Atl.  R.  orx;,  552 

Hoose  V.  Sherrill,  16  Wend.  (X. 

Y.)  33,  433 

Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  McCain,  133 

Ind.  231,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  956, 

526,  1108 
Hoover  v.  Carey  (la.),  53  N.  W. 

R.  415,  799,  1075 

Hoover  v.  Kinsey,  etc.,  Co.,   55 

la.  668,  293 

Hoover  v.  Tibbitts,  13  Wis.  79,  531 
Hoover  v.  Y'ork,  33  La.  Ann.  652,  332 
Hop  Bitters,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Warner, 

28  Fed.  R.  577,  1202 

Hope  V.  Beadon,  17  Q.  B.  509,  506 
Hope  V.   Blair,  105  Mo.  85,  S.  C. 

24  Am.  St.  R.  366,  244 

Hope  V.  Board,  42  La.  Ann.  647, 

S.  C.  7  So.  R.  706,  170 

Hopes  V.  Alder,  6  East  16,  555 

Hopkins  v.  Bowers,  HI  N.C.175, 

S.  C.  16  N.  E.  R.  323,         1025,  1027 
Hopkins  v.  Bishop,  91  Mich.  328, 

S.  C.  30  Am.  St.  R.  380,  1078 

Hopkins    v.     Commonwealth,    3 

Met.  (Mass.)  460,  242 

Hopkins  v.  Dowd,  11  Ark.  627,  1229 
Hopkins  v.  (iilman,  22  AVis.  476,  587 
Hopkins  v.  Meir,  19  Atl.  R.  264,  262 
Hopkins  v.  Orr,  124  U.  S.  510,  S. 

C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  590,  113 

Hopkins  v.  Stanley,  43  Ind.  553, 

1089,1100,  1102 
Hopkinson  v.  Steel,  12  Vt.  582,  180 
Hopper,  In  re,  2  L.  R.  Q.  B.  367,  573 
Hopper  v.Commonwealth,6  Gratt. 

684,  29 

Hopper  v.  Fisher,  2  Head  (Tenn.) 

253,  315,  610 

Hopper  V.  Lucas,  86  Ind.  43,  183, 1191 
Hopiier  V.  INIooro,  42  la.  563,  1091 

Hopson  V.  Brunwankel,  24  Tex. 

607,  537 


I-GO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Hopson  V.  Doolittle,  13  Conn.  236,   597 
lluptv. People, 104  L'.S.631,    1060,  1065 
Hopt  V.  United  States,  104  U.  S. 

631,  1143 

Hopt  V.  Utah,  120  U.  S.  430,  178 

Hopt  V.  Peoi)Ie,  110  U.  S.  574,  S. 

C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  614,  666 

Horat  V.  Jackel,  59  111.  139,  474 

Ilord  V.  Elliott,  33  Ind.  220,  134 

Horman  v.IIartmetz,  128  Ind. 353, 

S.  C.  27  i\.  E.  R.  731,  1213,1238 

Horn  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.R.  Co., 

54  Fed.  R.  301,  1054 

Horn  V.  Eberhart,  17  Ind.  118,       1158 
Horn  V.  Indianapolis  Nat.  Bank, 
125  Ind.  381,  S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A. 
676,  451 

Horn  V.  Lockhart,  17  Wall.  570,      116 
Horn   V.  State  (Ala.),  13   So.  R. 

329,  1069 

Hornady  v.  Shields,  119  Ind.  201 ,  1214 
Hornby  v.  Cramer,  12  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  490,  399 

Home  V.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Hun 

76,  304 

Hornek  v.  People,  134  111.  139,  S. 

C.  8L.  R.A.  837,  1113 

Horner  v.  Doe,  1  Ind.  130,  S.  C.  48 

Am.  Dec.  355,  428 

Horner  v.  Horner,  145  Pa.  St.  258, 

S.  C.  23  Atl.  441,  173 

Hornsby  v.  South  Carolina,  etc., 
Co.,  26  S.  Car.  187,  S.  C.  1  S.  E. 
R.  594,  179 

Horshaw  v.  Cook,  16  Ga.  526,  619 

Hort  v.  Jones,  2  Bay.  (S.  Car)  440,    620 
Horton  v.  Howard,  79  Mich.  642, 

S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  198,  218,  224 

Horton  v.  Miller,  38  Pa.  St.  270,  138 
Horton  v.Sawver,59  Ind.587,  248,  255 
Horton  v. Williams, 21  Minn. 187,  1065 
Horton  v.  Wilson, 25  Ind.316,  641,  1158 
Hoskin  v.  Fisher,  125  V.  S.  217. 
Hoskins  v.  Duperoy,  9  East.  498,     390 

443,  559 
Hosmer  v.  Teller,27  111.  App.  488,  1051 
Hostetter  v.Vowinkle,  1  Dill.  329,  485 
Hotchkiss   v.  Cutting,   14   Minn. 

537,  327 

Hotchkiss  v.  Germania  Fire  Ins. 

Co.,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  90,  807 

Hotchkiss  V.  Jones,  4  Ind.  260, 

248,  1137 
Hotchkiss  V.  Mosher,48  N.Y.478,  505 
Hottenstein    v.   Conrad,   9   Kan. 

438,  195,  1496 

Houck  V.  Gue,  80  Neb.  113,  S.  C. 

4(5  N.  AV.  R.  280,  818 

Honck    V.    Lasher,    17   How.   Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  520,  627 


cxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


506 

819 

341 
201 
315 


\^Iicferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol 
Houdlette  v.  Tallman,  14  Me.400,     500 
Hough  V.   Canbv,  8  Blackf.  301, 

443,  610 
Housh      V.      Chaffin,     4     Sneed 

(Tenn.)  238,  485 

Houghton  V.  Burroughs,  18  N.  H. 

499,  594,  596 

Houghton  V.  Watertown  Fire  Ins. 

Co.,  131  Mass.  300,  538 

Houk    V.    Allen,    126    Ind.    568, 

1118,  1119,  1120 
Houk  V.  Barthold,  73  Ind.  21,  31 

House  V.  Alexander.  105  Ind.  109, 

S.  C.  55  Am.  R.  189,  47,  404 

House  V.  Mullin,  22  Wall.  42,        1176 
House  of  Refuge  v.  Ryan,  37  Ohio 

St.  197,  294 

House    V.   Wright,  22    Ind.   383, 

1181,  1182 
Houseman  v.  Roberts,  5  C.  &  P. 

394, 
Houser  v.  Beam,  111  N.  Car.  501, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  335, 
Houser  v.  McKennon,  60  Tenn. 

287, 
Houser  v.  Roth,  37  Ind.  89, 
Housh  V.  People,  66  111.  178, 
Houston  V.  Bruner,  39  Ind.  376,     1182 
Houston  V.  Culver,  88  Ga.  34,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  953, 
Houston  V.  Jankowskie,  76  Tex. 

368,    S.  C.    13    S.   W.    R.   269, 

383, 
Houston  V.  Ladies',  etc.,  Assn., 

87Ga.  203,  S.C.  13S.E.R.634,  1113 
Houston  V.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  1,  247 
Plouston     V.    Pollard,    9     Mete. 

(Mass.)  164,  595 

Houston   V.    Starr,    12  Tex.   424, 

1181,  1182 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ter- 
rell, 69  Tex.  650,  656. 
Houston  V.  Timmerman,  17  Ore. 

499,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  848,  S. 

C.  4  L.  R.  A.  716,  498, 

Houston  V.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  Co., 

39  La.  Ann.  796,  S.  C.  2  So.  R. 

562, 
Houston  V.  Walcott,  7  la.  173, 
Houston  V.  Walcott,  1  la.  86, 
Houseworth     v.     Bloomhuff. 

Tnd.  487, 
Hout  V.  Wise,  27  Minn.  68, 
Hovenden  v.  Annesley,  2  Sch 

Lef.  607, 
Hovev  V.  Barker,  45  Kan. 

C.  26Pac.  R.  591. 


pp.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Hovev  V.  McDonald,  109  U.  S.  150, 

1202 
Hovey  v.  State,  127  Ind.  588,  170,  251 
Hovey  v.  State,  119  Ind.  386,  202,  203 
How  v.  Field,  5  Mass.  390,  472 

How  v.  Hall,  14  East  273,  506 

Howard  v.  Barbee,  21  Ind.  221,      638 
Howard  v.  Dalv,  61  N.  Y.  362,  S. 

C.  19  Am.  R."'285,  362 

Howard  v.  Freeman,  3  Abb.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  292,  625 

Howard  v.  Gosset,  10  Q.  B.  359,     316 
Howard  v. Lowell  Machine  Works, 

75  Ga.  325,  498 

Howard  v.  McDonough,  77  N.  Y. 

592,  738 

Howard  v.  Moore,  2  Mich.  226,       274 
Howard  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  24  Fla.  560,  S.  C.  5  So.  R. 

356,  590 

Howard  v.  Ross,  3  Wash.  292,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  526,  1227 

Howard  v.  Sexton,  4  N.  Y.  157, 

576,  592 
Howard  v.  Thornton,  50  Mo.  291,  328 
Howard  Ex.  Co.  v.  Wile,  64  Pa. 


548 


364 


663 


499 


310 
475 

181 
54 
1107 
1194 
& 
367,  376 
699,  S. 

324 


Hovey  v.  Carson,  119  Tnd.  395,       203 
Hovev  v.  Foster,  118  Ind.  502,  S. 
C.  21  N.  E.  R.  39,  170 


58,  S. 


St.  201, 
Howbert  v.  Heyle,  47  Kan 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  116, 
Howe  v.  Bass,  2  Mass.  380, 
Howe  V.  Coldren,  4  Nev.  171, 
Howe  v.  Huntington,  15  Me.  350, 
Howe  v.  Hvde,  88  Mich.  91,  S.  C 

50  N.  W.'R.  102, 
Howe  v.  Jones,  57  la.  130,  S.  C.  8 

N.  W.  R.  451, 
Howe  jNIachine  Co.  v.  Pettibone, 

74  N.  Y.  68, 
Howe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rosine,  87  111. 

105, 
Howe  V.  Russell,  36  Me.  115, 
Howel  V.  Commonwealth,  5  Gratt. 

(Va.)  664, 
Howell  V.  Bowers,  2  Cromj).  Mees. 

&  R.  621, 
Howell  V.  Budd,  91  Cal.  342,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  747, 
Howell  V.  Leavitt,  90  N.  Y.  238, 


1160 

263 

35 

1200 

553 

1075 

195 

445 

720 
200 

819 

299 

218 
1161 
Mills,  53  N.Y.  322,     162,177 
Pugh,  25  Kan.  96,  1160 

Revnolds,  12  Ala.  128,  801 
Shepard,  48  Mich.  472,  377 
State.  4  Ind.  App.  148, 

714,  660 

10  Tex.  App. 


Howell 
Howell  V 
Howell  V 
Howell  V 
Howell  V 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R 
Howell    V.   State, 

298, 
Howell  V.  Stetfeldt  Furnace  Co, 

69  Cal.  153,  S.C.  10  Pac.  R.  390, 
Howell  V.  Young,  5  B.  &  C.  259, 
Hower  v.  Weiss,  55  Fed.  R.  356, 


1171 

632 
369 
478 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxli 


\^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  J,  pp.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 


Howerter  v.  Kelly,  23  Mich.  337,  433 
Howes  V.  Austin,  3o  111.  3i)(i,  1040 

Howett  V.  M(niii-al,  2.")  111.  122,  597 
Howland  v.  Rooke,  loSMass.  590, 

S.  C.  33  N.  K.  H.  (352,  569 

Howhind's  Will,  4  Am.  Law  Rev. 

625,  ■  35 

Howley  v.  Whipple,  48  N.  H.  487,  503 
Howrie  v.  Rea,  75  N.  Car.  326,  738 
Hoxie  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  33  Conn. 

471,  820 

Hoxie  V.  liams,  26  Neb.  616,  S.  C. 

42  N.  W.  R.  711,  554 

Hoxie  V.  Pavne,  41  Conn.  539,  432 
Hoy  V.  Rogers,  4  Monr.  225,  346 

Hoytv.  Byrnes,  11  Me.  475,  400 

Hoyt  V.  Christie,  51  Vt.  48,  471 

Hoyt  V.  Davis,  30  Mo.  App.  309,  31 
Hoyt  V.  People,  140  111.  588,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.  R.  315,  S.  C.  16  L.  R. 

A.  239,  623,  624,  635 

Hovt  V.  Williams,  41  Mo.  270, 

1224,  1232 
Hubbard  v.  Gale,  105  Mass.  511,  668 
Hubbard  v.  Hubbard,  7  Ore.  42, 

179,  697 
Hubbard  v.  Hubbard,  61  111.  228,  593 
Hubbard,  Matter  of,  82  N.  Y.  90,  290 
Hu])bard  v.  Nat.,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  11 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  149,  632 

Hubbard  v.  Rutledge,  57  Miss.  7, 

658,  666 
Hubbard  v.  State,  7  Ind.  160,  630 

Hubbel  v.  Patterson,  1  Mo.  392,  1112 
Hubbell  V.  Woolf,  15  Ind.  204,  1194 
Hubbell  V.  Hubbell,3  Wis.  662,  S. 

C.  62  Am.  Dec.  702,  287 

Hubbell  V.  :\IcCourt,  44  Wis.  584,  124 
Hubbell  V.  :\Ie<ll)urv,  53  N.Y.  98,  372 
Hubble  V.  Osborn,  31  Ind.  249,  697 
Huber  v.  Beck,  6  Ind.  App.  484, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  985,  1082 

Huber  v.  State,  57  Ind.  341,  S.  C. 

26  Am.  R.  57,  820 

Huber    v.    Zimmerman,  21    Ala. 

488,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  255,  581 

Huckell  V.  McCoy,  38  Kan.  53,  820 
Hi\ckins  v.   Kapf,  4  Tex.  Ct.   of 

Ai)p.  Civil  Cases  37,  S.  C.  14  S. 

W.  R.  1016,  706 

Huckvale  v.  Kendal,  3  Barn.  & 

Aid. 137,  1198 

Hudson  v.  Allison,  54  Ind.  215,  206 
Hudson  V.  Breeding,  7  Ark.  445, 

319,  1196 
Hudson  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  Co., 

55  Fed.  R.  272,  1224 

Hudson  V.  Bishop,  35  Fed.  R.  820,  385 
Hudson   V.    Bishop,   32    Fed.    R. 

519,  3S5 


Hudson    V.   (juestier,   6    Cranch 

281,  329 

Hudson  V.  Hanson,  75  III.  198, 

632,  634 
Hudson  V.  Hudson,  87  Ga.  678,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  583,  180 

Hudson  V.  Hudson,  20  Ala.  364, 

S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  200,  191 

Hudson  V.  Hudson,  90  Ga.  581, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  349,  822 

Hudson  V.  Jordon,  108  N.  Car.  10, 

S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  1029,  823 

Hudson  V.  Maze,  3  Scam.  578,  410 
Hudson   V.   McCartney,  33  Wis. 

331,  407 

Hudson  V.  Railroarl.  53  Mo.  525,  663 
Hudson  V.  State,  1  Blackf.  317, 

178,  662 
Hudson  V.  State,  54  Ind.  378,  393 

Hudson  V.  Wetheriugton,  79  N. 

Car.  3,  676 

Hudson  V.  Wheeler,  34  Tex.  356,  367 
Hudspeth  v.  Allen,  26  Ind.  165,  792 
Hudspeth    V.    Herston,   64    Ind. 

133,  656 

Hudspeth  v.  State,  55  Ark.  323, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  183,  146,  206 

Huerzeler  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  20 

N.  Y.  Supp.  676,  1080 

Huff  V.  Bennett,  6  N.  Y.  337,  800 

Huff  V.  Brantley,  66  Ga.  599,  1236 
Huff  V.   Freeman,   15  La.   Ann, 

240,  618,  621 

Huff  V.  Gilbert,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

19,  1116,  1235 

Huff  V.  Hutchinson,  14  How.  586, 

132,  1171 
Huffman  v.  Cauble,  86  Ind.  591,  1068 
Huffman  v.  State,  28  Tex.  App. 

174,  S.  C.  12  S.  AV.  R.  588,  1110 

Hugg  V.  Collins,  18  N.  J.  L.  294,     598 
Huggins  Cracker,  etc.,  Co.  v.  El- 
lis, 45  Mo.  App.  585,  541 
Huggins  V,  AVatford  (S.  Car.),  17 

S.  E.  R.  363,  1041 

Hughes  V.  Beggs,  114  Ind.  427.  738 
Hughes  V.  City  of  Cairo,  92   111. 

339,  '  661 

Hughes  V.  Commonwealth,  89  Ky. 

227,  S.  C.  12  S.  W.   R.  269,       '     232 
Hughes  V.  Cummings,  7  Col.  203, 

StC.  2Pac.  R.  289.  221 

Hughes  V.  Detroit,  etc.  R'v  Co., 

65  Mich.  10,  '  520 

Hughes  V.  Dundee  Mortgage,  etc., 

Co.,  140  U.  S.  98,  S.  C.  11  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  727,  537 

Hughes  V.  Edward,  9  Wheat.  (U. 

S?')  489,  386 

Hughes  V.  Feeter,  18  la.  142,         1213 


cxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Iiefere7ices  arc  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  }:<]) 
Hughes  V.  Graves,  39  Vt.  359,  371 

Hughes  V.  Hinds,  69  Ind.  93,  190 

Hughes  V.  Hughes,  54  Pa.  St.  240,  386 
Hughes  V.  Jackson,  12  Md.  450,  172 
Hughes  V.  Jones,  26  Beav.  24,  1202 
Hughes  V.  McGee,  1  A.  K.  Mar. 

28,  1167 

Hughes  V.  Monty,  24  la.  499,  475,  1168 
Hughes  V.  Moore, 17  Mo.  App.  148, 

1135,  1139 
Hughes  V.  Oregonian  Rv.  Co.,  11 

Ore.  158,  '  471 

Hughes  V.  Osborn,  42  Ind.  450, 

429,  605 
Hughes  V.  People,  116  111.  330,  S. 

C.  6  N.  E.  R.  55,  1165 

Hughes  V.  People,  5  Col.  436,  640 
Huehes  V.  Pipkin,  Phill.  L.  (N. 

C^ar.)  4,  553 

Hughes  V.  Robertson,  1 T.  B.  Mon- 
roe (Ky.),215,  &.  C.  15  Am.  Dec. 

104,  1219,  1221 

Hughes  V.  Shreve,  3  Mete.  (Ky.) 

547,  1185 

Hughes  V.Westmoreland  Coal  Co., 

104  Pa.  St.  207,  782 

Hulce  V.Thompson, 8  How.Pr.475,  488 
Huling  V.  Railway  Co.,  130  U.  S. 

559,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  603,  275 

Hull  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21 

Neb. 371,  S.  C.32,N.W.R.162,    449 
Hull  V.  Hull,  35  W.  Va.  155,  S.  C. 

29  Am.  St.  R.  800,  335,  445 

Hull  V.  Hull,  2  Strob.  Eq.  174,  287 
Hull  V.  Louth,  109  Ind.  315, 

1149,  1150,  1217,  1219 
Humboldt  Countv  v.  Dinsmore,  75 

Cal.  406,  S.  C.  17  Pac.  R.  710,      322 
Hume  V.  Conduitt,  76  Ind.  598, 

126, 133,  426 
Hume  V.  Scott,  3   A.  K.   Marsh 

(Ky.)  260,  802 

Humes  v.  Decatur  Land,  etc.,  Co. 

(Ala.),  13  So.  R.  368,  778 

Humphreys  v.  Borough  of  Woods- 
town,  48  N.  J.  L.588,  S.  C.  7  Atl. 

R. 301,  1066 

Humphrey  v.  Chamberlain,  11  N. 

Y.  274,  296 

Humphrey  v.  State,  78  Wis.  569, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  836,  705 

Humphreys  v.  Gardner,  11  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)'61,  598 

Humphreys  v.Klick,49  Ind. 189,  1160 
Humphreys  v.Mattoon.  43  la.  556,  528 
Humphries  v.  Brogden,  12  Q.  B. 

7.39,  484 

Humphries  v.  Davis,  100  Ind.  274,  61 
Humphries  v.  Marshall,  12  Ind. 

609,  1166 


,  1-602,  Vol  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Humphries  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  48  N. 

J.  L.  588,  S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  301,      1122 
Humphries  v.  Parker,  52  Me.  502, 

544,  552 
Hundley  v.  Yonge,  69  Ala.  89,  1162 
Hungerford v.Cusliing,8 Wis. 320,  254 
Hungerford  y.  O'Brien,  37  Minn. 

30(1,  S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  161,  413 

Hunnel  v.  State,  86  Ind.  431,  632 

Hunnicutv. Peyton, 102  U.S.333,  1218 
Hunsinger  v.  Hofer,  110  Ind.  390, 

512,  737 
Hunt  y.  Adams,  6  Mass.  519,  533 

Hunt  v.  Bailey,  4  Ind.  630,  511 

Hunt  V.  Bloomer,  13  N.Y.  341,  1134 
Hunt  V.  Brennan,  1  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

213,  614 

Hunt  V.  Hunt,  72  N.  Y.  217, 

168,  241,  288 
Hunt  V.  Jennings,  5  Blackf .  195,  338 
Hunt  V.  Norris,  4  Mart.  (La.)  517,  463 
Hunt  V.  Order  of  Chosen  Friends, 

64  Mich.  671,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R. 

576,  504 

Hunt  V.  Salem,  121  Mass.  294,  546 
Hunt  V.  Shackleford,  56  Miss.  397,  33 
Hunt  V.  State,  49  Ga.  255,  178,  819 
Hunt  V.  Stevens,  3  Ired.  365,  198 

Hunt  V.  Stewart,  7  Ala.(N.S.)  525,  32 
Hunt  v.  Terril,  7  J.  J.  Marsh.  67,  1179 
Hunt  v.  Tinkham,  21  111.  639,  636 

Hunter's  Estate,  In  re,  84  la.  388, 

S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  20,  150,153 

Hunter  v.  Bales,  24  Ind.  299,  403 

Hunter  v.  Bryant,  98  Cal.  247,  S. 

C.  33  Pac.  R.  51,  605 

Hunter  v.  Burnsville  Turnp.  Co., 

56  Ind.  213,  434,  459 

Hunter  v.  Case,  20  Vt.  195,  472 

Hunter  v.  Ferguson,  13  Kan.  462, 

217,  226 
Hunter  v.  Fitzmaurice,  102  Ind. 

449,  1157 

Hunter  v.  Frost,  47  Minn.  1,  S.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  327,  411 

Hunter  v.  Hatfield,  68  Ind.  416, 

1156,  1210 
Hunter  v.  Hatton,  4  Gill  115,  S. 

C.  45  Am.  Dec.  117,  325 

Hunter  v.  Hubbard,  26  Tex.  537,  373 
Hunter  v.  Hunter,  100  111.  519, 

1182,  1184 
Hunter  v.  Minor,  18  How.  (U.S.) 

286,  1025 

Hunter  v.  Rice,  15  East  100,  572,  598 
Hunter  v.  Soward,  15  Neb.  215,  465 
Hunter  v.   Spotswood,   1   Wash. 

(Va.)  145,  451 

Hunter  v.  State,  8  Tex.  App.  75, 

1118,  1120 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


cxliii 


[References  are  to  PayeH,  Vul.  J,  pp 
Hunter  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  6  Hill 

407,  1225 

Hunter  v.  Wetsell,  84  N.  Y.  549, 

S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  544,  795,  797 

Huntington  v.  Charlotte,  15  Vt. 

46,  315 
Huntington  v. Clark, 39  Conn.  540,  567 
Huntington  v.  Conkey,  33  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  218,  669  676 

Huntington    v.    Drake,   24    Ind. 

347,  1182 

Huntington  v.  Risdon,  43  la.  517,  475 
Huntsman  v.  Nichols,  116  Mass. 

521,  599 

Hurd  V.  Trust  Co.,  63  How.  Pr. 

(N.Y.)314,  471 

Hurdle  v.  Leath,  63  N.  Car.  366,  201 
Hurdle  v.  Stalling,  109  N.  Car.  6, 

S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  720,  601 

Hurlburtv.  Bellows,  50  N.H.  105,  796 
Hurlburt  v.  Hicks   17  Vt.  193,  S. 

C.  44  Am.  Dec.  329,  471 

Hurlburt  v.  Wheeler,  40  N.  H.  73, 

525,  560 
Hurlbut  V.  Thomas,  55  Conn.  181, 

S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  43.  276 

Hurley  v.Bevens  (Ark.), 22  S.W. 

R.  172,  637 

Hurley  v.  State,  46  Ohio  St.  320, 

S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  161,  797 

Hurlev  v.  State,  29  Ark.  17,  667 

Hurrfv.  Cline  (Ky.),  20  S.  W. 

R.  277,  518 

Hursen  v.  Lehman,  35  111.  App. 

489,  1235 

Hurst  V.  Dippo,  1  Dall.  20,  1025 

Hurst  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  81  Ala. 

174,  473 

Hurst  V.  Litchfield,  39  N.  Y.  377,  575 
Hurst  V.  Parker,  1  B.  &  Aid.  92,  383 
Hurt  V.  State,  26  Ind.  106,  638 

Hurth  V.  Bower,  30  Hun  151,  337 

Hurtons  v.Townes,6  Leigh  (Va.) 

47,  532 
Huse  V.  Den  (Cal.),  30  Pac.  R. 

104,  1231 

Husky  V.  Maples,  2  Coldw.(Tenn.) 

25,  S.  C.  88  Am.  Dec.  588,  386 

Huson  V.  Dale,  19  Mich.  17,  S.  C. 

2  Am.  R.  66,  958 

Hussey  y.  Freeman,  10  Mass.  84,  554 
Hussey  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.R.  Co., 

98  N.  Car.  34,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R. 

312,  535 

Hussey  y.  State,  87  Ala.  121,  S.  C. 

6  So.  R.  420,  635, 799 

Hust  y.  Conn,  12  Ind.  257,  453 

Huston  V.  Plato,  3  Col.  402,  532 

Huston  y.  Roots,  30  In<l.  461,  509 

Hutchings  y.  Buck,  32  Me.  277,     1047 


lau-J,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Hutchings  v.  Scott, 4 Hals.  (N.J.) 

218,  119 

Ilutchins  y.  Ilutchins,  98  N.  Y. 

56,  1067 

Ihitcliin.s  V.  Latimer,  5  Ind.  67,  454 
llutciiinson  V.  Bowker,  5  Mees.  & 

W.  535,  538 

Hutchinson  v.  Green,  6  Fed.  R. 

833,  196 

Hutchinson  y.  Johnson,  12  Conn. 

376,  S.  C.  30  Am.  Dec.  622,  582 
Hutchinson  y.  Lenicke,  107  Ind. 

121,  S.  C.  8  N.  E.  R.  71,  340 

Hutchinson    y.    Liyerpool,    etc., 

Ass'n  (Mass.),  10  L.  R.  A.  558,  589 
Hutchinson   y.   Reid,  3   Campb. 

329,  390 

Hutchinson  y.  State,  62  Ind.  556,  309 
Hutchinson  y.  State,  19  Neb.  262,  657 
Hutchison  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co., 

41  Wis.  541,  1090 

Hutkof  y.   Demorest,  103  N.   Y. 

377,  118,  119 
Hutson  V.  Townsend,  6  Rich.  Eq. 

249,  290 

Hutson  y.  Woodbridge,  etc.,   79 

Cal.  90,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  549,  424 
Hutton  V.  Arnett,  51  111.  198,  34 

Hutts  y.  Hutts,  62  Ind.  214, 

289,  629,  805 
Hutts  y.  Hutts,  51  Ind.  581,  234,  236 
Hutts  y.  Shoaf.  88  Ind.  395,  622 

Huy  V.  Brown,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

591,  598 

Hyatt  y.  Clements,  65  Ind.  12, 

675,  1094 
Hyatt  y.  Johnston,  91  Pa.  St.  196, 

1051,1053 
Hyde  y.  Boyle,  89  Cal.  590,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R:  1092,  1243 

Hyde  y.  Curling,  10  Mo.  359,  188 

Hvde  y.  State,  67  Am.  Dec.  630, 

620,  623,  624,  625,  657 
Hyde  Park,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kerber,  5 

111.  App.  132,  195 

Ilveronimus   v.  Allison,  52    Mo. 

102,  601 

Hyland  v.  Brazil,  etc.,  Co.,  128 

Ind.  335,  12.38 

IIvlandv.Milner.  99  Ind.  308,  744,784 
IlVlaiul    V.    Sherman,    2    E.    D. 

Smith  (N.  Y.)  234,  1043 

Hvllis  y.  State.  45  Ark.  478,  217,  228 
HVnds  y.  Ilavs.  25  Ind.  31,  1051 

Hvnds  V.  Imbo.len,  5  Ark.  385,  235 
Ilynes  v.  :\Icncrmott,  82  N.  Y.  41, 

S.  C.  37  Am.  R.538,  35 

Ilynson  y.  Taylor,  3  Ark.  552,  463 
Hvslop  V.  Hoppock,  5  Ben.  (U.  S) 

"447,  438 


cxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\_References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  irp 


Ickes  V.  Kelley,  21  Ind.  72,  632 

Idaho,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bradbnrv,  132 

U.  S.  509,  '  1127 

Iddings  V.  Iddings,  134  Ind.  322, 

S.  C.  33N.E.  K.  1101,  1234 

Ide    V.    Churchill,    14    Ohio   St. 

372,  1231 

Ihinger  v.  State,  53  Ind.  251,  808 

Ikerd  V.  Bevers,  106  Ind.  483, 

110,  1130,  1163 
Ilett  V.  Collins,  102  111.  402,  622 

Iliff  V.  Arnott,  31  Kan.  672,  156 

Illinois  Cent.  R.R.  Co.  v.  Boehms, 

70  Miss.  11,  S.  C.  12  So.  R.  23,     1056 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Turner 

(Miss.),  14  So.  R.  450,  '  1056 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Able,  59  111. 

131,  1119 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fix,  53  111. 

131,  98 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Slatton,  54 

111.  133,  70 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swearingen, 

33  111.  289,  310 

Illinois    Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bon- 
ner, 75  111.  315,  502 
instead  V.  Anderson,  2  N.  Dak. 

167,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  659,  1043 

llsley  V.  Harris,  10  Wis.  95,  429 

Imley  v.  Beard,  6  Cal.  666,  1049 

Imperial,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kiernan,  83 

Ky.  468,     .  1162 

Independent,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thomas, 

104  Mass.  192,  1192 

Indiana,  B.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Cook,  102  Ind.  133,  679 

Indiana  Car  Co.   v.  Parker,  100 

Ind.  181,  546,  810,  981 

Indiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ga- 

pen,  10  Ind.  292,  *  120 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 

112  Ind.  302,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R. 

80,  565,  1228 

Indiana,    etc.,  Co.   v.   Bird,   116 

Ind.  217,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  837,    234 
Indiana,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Bradly,   7 

Ind.  49,  573 

Indiana,   etc.,  Co.  v.  East,  etc., 

Co.,  28  Fla.  387,  S.  C.  10  So.  R. 

480,  487 

Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Finnell,  116 

Ind.  414,  1150 

Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Foster,  107 

In<l.  4.30,  305 

Indiana,  etc.,  v.  Koons,  105  Ind. 

507,  300 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Indiana,  etc.,   Co.  v.   McBroom, 

103  lud.  310,  1159 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Oakes, 

20  Ind.  9,  398 

Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  22 

Ind.  198,  192 

Indiana  Farmers',  etc.,  Co. v.  Byr- 

kett  (Iud.),36N.E.  R.  779, 

1068,  1069 
Indianapolis  v.  Gilmore,  30  Ind. 

414  398 

Indianapolis  V.  Huffer,30Ind.235,   739 
Indianapolis    v.    Kingsbury,    101 

Ind.  200,  529 

Indianapolis  v.  McAvoy,  86  Ind. 

587,  633 

Indianapolis  v.  Patterson, 112  Ind. 

344,  381 

Indianapolis  v.  Patterson,  33  Ind. 

157,  1241 

Indianapolis  v.  Scott,  72  Ind. 196,     815 
Indianapolis,  City  of,  v.  Lawyer, 

38  Ind.  348,  1036,  1091 

Indianapolis  Cabinet  Co.  v.  Herr- 
mann (Ind.  App.),34  N.  E.  R. 

579,  696 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bank,  33 

Ind.  302,  1169 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  City  of 

Indianapolis,  29  Ind.  245,  484 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of 

Lawrenceburgh,  37  Ind.  489,        491 
Indianapolis,  P.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Bush,  101  Ind.  582, 
527,  530,  720,  1069,  1102,  1104,  1106 
Indianapolis,  P.  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.  y. 

Keely,  23  Ind.  133,  529 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Hood, 

130  Ind.  594,  1200 

Indianapolis,   etc.,  R.    R.  Co.  y. 

Horst,  93  U.S.  291,     1064,  1087,  1159 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Kinney, 

8  Ind.  402,  1139 

Indianapolis  &  V.  R.   R.  Co.  y. 

McCaffrey,  62  Ind.  552,      1098,  1170 
Indianapolis  &  V.  R.  R.   Co.  y. 

McCaffrey,  72  Ind.  294,  1209 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  McLin, 

82  Ind.  435,  1030 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pitzer, 

109  Ind. 179,  668 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Ruther- 
ford, 29  Ind.  82,  1091 
Indianapolis,  etc.,Ry.Co.y.  Sands, 

133  Ind.  433,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

722,  342,  557,  612 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Solomon, 

23  Ind.  534,  261 

Indianapolis,  etc.,   R.  R.  Co.  y. 

Sniythe,  45  Ind.  322,  638 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlv 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  K.  Co.  v. 
Stout,  ry.i  Ind.  14.5,       512,  1008,  1095 

Indianai)olis  A:  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Watson,  114  Ind.  20,  52G,  548 

Indigo  Co.  V.  Ogilvy,  L.  R.  (18!)l) 
2Ch.8I,  434,014 

Ingals  V.  Allen,  144  111.  535,  S.  C. 
33  N.  E.  R.  203,  1090 

Inge  V.  Murphv,  10  Ala.  897,  545 

Ingel  V.  Scott,  SB  Ind.  518,  1230 

Ingernian  v.  Moore,  90  Cal.  410, 
S.  C.  25  Am.  St.  R.  138,  549 

Ingersoll  v.Ingersoll,42  Miss. 155,     443 

IngersoU  v.  Mangam,  84  N.  Y.  622, 

292,  443 

Inglebright  v.  Ilannnond,  19  Ohio 
337,  517 

Ingraham  v.  Hall,  1 1  Serg.  &  R.  78,  301 

Ingrahani  v.  Whitiiiore,  75  111.  24,     595 

Inhabitants  of  Boston  v.  Brazer, 
11  Mass.  447,  574 

Inhabitants  of  Dennis  v.  Inhab- 
itants of  Brewster,  7  Gray  351,      31 

Inhabitants  of  Limerick,  Petition- 
ers, In  re,  18  Me.  183,  188 

Inhabitants  of  New  Salem  v. Eagle 
Mill  Co.,  138  Mass.  8,  370 

Inhabitants  of  Sutton  v.  Inhab- 
itants of  Dana,  1  Mete.  (Mass.) 
383,  1116 

In  re  Ah  Lee,  5  Fed.  R.  899,  216 

In  re  Ah  Lee,  6  Sawy.  (U.  S.  C. 
C.)  410,  214 

In  re  Allison,  13  Col.  525,  S.  C. 
16  Am.  St.  R.  224,  145,  146 

In  re  Application  of  Judges,  64 
Pa.  St.  33,  232,  234 

In  re  Ayhner,  L.  R.  20  Q.  B.  Div. 
258,  239 

In  re  Baring  Brothers  &  Co.,  61 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  704,  590 

In  re  Bliss,  39  Hun  (N.  Y.)  594,     590 

In  re  Bogart,  2  Sawver  396,  241 

In  re  Bond,  9  S.  Car.  80,  S.  C.  30 
Am.  R.  20,  243 

In  re  Bovle,  9  Wis.  264,  214 

In  re  Burke,  76  Wis.  357,  S.  C.  45 
N.  W.  R.  24,  214,  235 

In  re  Buskett,  106  Mo.  602,  S.  C. 
14  L.  R.  A.  407,  781 

In  re  Butler,  101  N.  Y.  307,  1046 

In  re  Butler's  Estate,  13  Ir.  Ch. 
R.  456,  196 

In  re  Cahill,  110  Pa.  St.  167,  S.  C. 
20  Atl.  R.  414,  118,  119 

^n  re  Circuit  Court,  1  New  Zea- 
land Court  of  Appeals,  329,  143 

In  re  Cleveland  (N.  J.),  17  Atl. 
R.  772,  118 

J 


2-aO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-7244.] 
In  re  Cloherty,  2  Wash.  137.  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  1064,  119 

n  re  Cohen,  5  Cal.  494,  195 

n  re  Colvin,  3  Md.  Ch.  278,  497 

n  re  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  67,  115 

n  re  Cooper,  93  N.  Y.  507,  333 

n  re  Creighteu,  12  Neb.  280,  337 

n  re  Crow,  60  Wis.  349,  336 

n  re  Davis'  Estate,  11  Mont.  1, 

S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  342,  254 

n  re  Diss  Debar,  3  N.Y.  Supl.  667,  294 
n  re  Donohue,  52  How.  Pr.  251,  294 
n  re  Edwards,  35  Kan.  99,  S.  C. 

10  Pac.  R.  .539,  154 

n  re  Election  of  Executive  Offi- 
cers, 31  Neb.  262,  S.  C.  10  L.  R. 

A.  803,  296 

n  re  Evans,  22  L.  T.  501,  573 

n  re  Ferrier,  103  111.  367,  S.  C.  42 

Am.  R.  10,  294 

n  re  Fifteenth  Avenue,  54  Cal. 

179,  1208 

n  re  First  Street,  58  Mich.  641, 

S.  C.  26  N.  W.  Rep.  159,  652 

n  re  Gorrv,  48  Hun  29,  S.  C.  15 

N.  Y.  St."R.  315,  164 

n  re  Graham,  74  Wis.  450,  S.  C. 

43  N.  W.  R.  148,  341 

n  re  Guendar,  69  Cal.  88,  220 

n  re  Harvev,  16  111.  127,  188 

n  re  Hatch;  43  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  89,  424 
n  re  llealev,  53  Vt.  694,  S.  C.  38 

Am.  R.  713,  457 

n  re  Heath's  Will,  83  la.  215,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  1037,  206,  565 

n  re  Hill,  6  Ct.  of  CI.  83,  736 

n  re  Hinkle,  31  Kan.  712,  217 

n  re  Hopper,  2  L.  R.  Q.  B.  367,  573 
n  re  LIunter's  Estate,  84  la.  388, 

S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  20,  150 

n   re   Inhabitants  of  Limerick, 

Petitioners,  18  Me.  183,  188 

n  re  Janitor,  35  Wis.  410.  204 

n  re  Johnson,  12  Kan.  102,  213 

n  re  Kaine,  14  How.(U.  S.)  103,  256 
n  re  Kan)aha,2  Hawaiian  R.  444,  304 
n  re  Kaminskv,  70  Mich.  653,  S. 

C.  38  N.  W.  R.  659.  341 

n  re  Kellv,  46  Fed.  R.  653,  308 

n  re  Kipp.  63  Mich.  79,  S.  C.  29 

N.  W.  R.  517,  1055 

n  re  Kreiss  (Cal.),  S.  C.  28 Pac. 

R.  808,  576 

n  re  Lady  Hastings,  L.  R.  35  Ch. 

Div.  94,  381 

n  re  Lamb's  Estate.  95  Cal.  397, 

S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  568,  1243 

n  re  Lasak's  Will,  131  N.  Y.  624, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  112,  720 


cxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\^Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
In  re  Lloyd,  L.  R.  12  Ch.  Div. 

447,  194 

In  re  Loney,  134  U.  S.  372,  303 

In  re  Lons  Branch,  etc.,  R.R.  Co., 
24  N.  J.^Eq.  398,  497 

'  In  re  Lower  Chatham,  35  N.  J.  L. 
\     497,  1129 

lln  re  Lynch,  9  Abb.  N.  C.  69,        232 
-'In  re  MacKnisfht,  11  Mont.  126,      736 
"in  re  Maiinins:,  76  Wis.  365,  S.  C. 
I     45  N.  \V.  Rr26,  214,235 

I  In  re  .Manning,  139  U.  S.  504,  235 

In  re  Marston,  79  Me.  25,  S.  C.  3 
\    N.  E.  R.  601,  224 

In  re  Matter  of  the  Will  of  War- 
field,  22  Cal.  51,  S.  C.  83  Am. 
Dec.  49,  263 

In  re  Maunder,  49  L.  T.  R.  535,      601 
In  re  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  162,  196 

In  re  Merritt,  5  Paige,  125,  409 

In  re  Metger,  5  How.  (U.S.)  176,      256 
In  re  Mills,  135  U.  S.  263,  S.  C.  10 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  762,  340 

In  re  Millington,24  Kan.  214,     142,  227 
In  re  Neagle,  39  Fed.  R.  833,  S.  C. 
'    135  U.  S.  1,  137,  298 

-In  re  Neagle,  14  Saw.  (U.S.  C.  C.) 
'.     232,  8.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  78,  137 

'In re  Newcomb,  18N.Y.  Supp.l6,     642 
lln  re  Newman's  Estate, 75  Cal.  213, 
j     S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  887,  450 

tin  re  Norwegian  St.,  81  Pa.  St.  349,  298 
In  re  Noves'  Will,  61  Vt.  14,  S.  C. 

17  Atl.'R.  743,  540 

In  re  Ohm's  Estate,  82  Cal.  160,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  927,  254,  1184 

In  re  Pacific  Ry. Company,  32  Fed. 

R.  241,  117,  119,  170 

In  re  Parks,  3  Mont.  426,  214 

In  re  Pease  Furnace  Co.,  59  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  626,  628 

In  re  Permstick,  3  Wash.  672,  S. 

C.  28  Am.  St.  R.  80,  340 

In  re  Pettv,  22  Kan.  477,  341 

» In  re  Pevton,  12  Kan.  398,  639 

'In  re  Pierce,  44  Wis.  411,         243,  336 
In  re  Price,   6  New  South  Wales 
,      140,  342 

(In  re  Radde.9  N.  Y.  Supl.  812,  S. 
\     C.  2  Connolv  293,  248 

In  re  Raffertv,  1  Wash.  382,  340 

In  re  Revder's  Estate,  38  N.  Y.  St. 

R.  29,  S.  C.  59  Hun  618,  110 

In  re  Road  McCandless  Tp.,  110 

Pa.  St.  605,8. C.  1  Atl.  R.594,    173,  594 

In  re  Saline  County,  45  Mo.  52,       115 

In  re  Schen,  74  N.  Car.  607,  341 

In  re  School  Law  Manual,  63  N.  H. 

574,  119 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
In  re  Shoenberger's  Est.,  139  Pa. 

St.  132,  8.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  1050,  263 
In  re  Snelling's  Will,  136  N.  Y. 

515,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  1006,  741,  799 
In  re  Soule,  46  Hun  (N.  Y.)  661,  434 
In  re  Spencer's  Estate,  96  Cal.  448, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  453,  1081 

In  re  Studdard,  30  Minn.  553,         1180 
In  re  Twenty-eighth  Street,   102 

Pa.  St.  140,  337 

In  re  Vanvabry,  88  Tenn.  334,       1242 
In  re  Waite,  99  N.  Y.  433,  284 

In  re  Walker,  1  Lowell's  Dec.  237,  312 
In  re  Washington  Street,  132  Pa. 

St.  257,  8.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  193,  S.  C. 

19  Atl.  R.  219,  170 

In  re  Wells,  36  Kan.  341,  149 

In  re  Westerfield's  Estate,  96  Cal. 

113,  8.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  1104,  783 

In  re  Whitson,  89  Mo.  58,  8.  C.  1 

S.  W.  R.  125,  628 

In  re  Wright,  134  U.  S.  136, 

188,  191,  1243 
In   re  Wrigley,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

134,  '  464 

Inslee  v.  Flagg,  26  N.  J.  L.  368,  S. 

C.  69  Am.  Dec.  580,  592 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Bangs,  103  U.  S. 

435,  284,  293,  443 

Insurance  Co.v.Comstock,16Wall. 

258,  1131 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Folsom,  18  Wall. 

237,  1051,1141,1146 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Hall,  12  Mich. 

202,  385 

Insurance  Co.  y.  Hanna,  81  Tex, 

487,  8.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  35,  614 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Howell,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  238,  299 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall. 

445,  408 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Myer,  93  111.  271,    385 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Price,  1  Hopk. 

Ch.  2,  214,  219 

Insurance    Co.  of  N.  America  v. 

Swineford,  28  Wis.  257,  603 

Insurance    Co.    v.   University,   6 

Fed.  R.  443,  299 

Insurance  Co.  y.  Whitehill,  25  111. 

466,  385 

Interlied  y.  AVhaley,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 

74,  624 

International,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Dyer,  76  Tex.  156,  744,  783,  797 

International,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  y. 

Kernan,  78  Tex.  294,  S.  C.  9  L. 

R.  A.  703,  1064 

International  Fair,  etc.,  Ass'n  y. 

Walker,  88  Mich.  62,  S.  C.  49 

N.  W.  R.  1086,  557 


TAI'.LK    OF    CASES. 


cxlvii 


[lipferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v. 

Kuehii,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  210,  S. 

C.  21  8.  W.  R.  58,  1071 

International  &.  G.  N.  R.  R.  Co. 

V.  Sinicock,  81  Tex.  503,  S.  C.  17 

8.  W.  R.  47,  1069 

International  Tooth  Co.  v.  INIills, 

22  Fed.  R.  059,  488 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Application 

of  the  Senate,  10  Minn.  78,  118 

In  the  Matter  of  Cooper,  22  N.  Y. 

67,  160 

In   the   Matter  of  the  Senate,  9  . 

Col.  623,  118 

Intoxicating     Liquor    Cases,    25 

Kan.  751,  213 

Irbv  V.  Wilson,  1  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq. 

568,  287 

Ireland,  Ex  parte,  38  Tex.  344,  155 
Irev  V.  Mater  (Ind.),  31  N.  E.  R. 

69,  371 

Irions  v.  Keystone  Mfg.  Co.,  61  la. 

406,  432 

Iron  Mountain  Bank  v.  Murdock, 

62  Mo.  70,  532 

Irvine  v.  Levh,  102  Mo.  200,  59 

Irwin  V.  Anthony,  8  Ind.  470,  1168 
Irwin  V.  Dixion,9  How.(U.S.)  10,  483 
Irwin  V.  Lewis,  50  Miss.  363,  481 

Irwin  V.  Scril)er,  18  Cal.  499,  313 

Irwin  V.  Smith,  72  Ind.  482,  1157, 1235 
Irwin  V.  Towne,  42  Cal.  326,  35 

Isaacs  V.  Beth  Hamedash  Soc,  1 

Hilt.  469,  582,  587 

Isaacs  V.  Price,  2  Dill.  (C.  C.)  347, 

378,  427 
Isham  V.  Downer,  8  Conn.  282,  467 
Islay  V.  Ptewart,  4  Dev.  &  B.  (N. 

Car.)  160,  539 

Isler  v.  Dewey,  75  N.  Car.  466,  797 
Isler  v.  Dewey,  71  N.  Car.  14,  804 

Isler  V.  Haddock,  72  N.  C.  119,  1240 
Israel  v.  Arthur,  7  Col.  5,  117 

Israel  v.  Benjamin,  3  Campb.  40,  399 
Israel  v.  Brooks,  23  HI.  526,  552 

Ives  v.  Ashelbv,  26  111.  App.  244,  574 
Ives  V.  Curtiss^  2  Root  133,  464 

Ives  V.  Leonard,  50  Mich.  296,  740 
Ivey  V.  Owens,  28  Ala.  641,  275 

Ivev  V.  AVilliams,  78  Tex.  685,  S. 

C.  15  S.  W.  R.  163,  551 

Ivory  V.  Delore,  26  :\Io.  505,  1179 

Izard  V.  Bodine,  9  N.J.  Eq.  309,      201 


Jacks  V.  Moore,  .33  Ark.  31 ,      239,  609 
Jackson  v.  Ambler,  14  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  96,  595,  590 


l~f;02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00.1-1244.'] 
Jackson  v.  Brooks,  14  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  ()49,  377 

Jackson    v.    F>nchanan,   59   Ind. 

390,  307 

Jack.son  v.  Burtis,  14  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)  391,  505 

Jackson  v.  Caldwell,  1  Cow.  022,  1225 
Jackson  v.  Clark,  7  Johns.  217,  450 
Jackson    v.    Commonwealth,    23 

Gratt.  (Va.)  919,  660 

Jackson  v.  Crafts,  18  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  110,  400 

Jackson  v.  Crawfords,  12  Wend. 

533,  242,  267 

Jackson  v.  Dickenson,  15  Johns. 

309,  1124 

Jackson  v.  Dieffendorf,  3  Johns. 

209,  371 

Jackson  v.   Delaplaine,  6  Hous. 

(Del.)  358,  676 

Jackson  v.    Evans,    73    N.    Car. 

128,  790 

Jackson  v.  Farlow,  75  Ind.  118,  526 
Jackson  v.  Gager,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

383,  591,  598 

Jackson    v.    Hartwell,  8  Johns. 

422,  202 

Jackson  v.  Hesketh,  2  Stark  R, 

454,  676 

Jackson  v.  Hodges,  24  Md.  468,  567 
Jackson  v.  Jackson,  1  Johns.424,  289 
Jackson  v.  Jackson,  16  Ohio  St. 

163,  1049 

Jackson  v.  Jackson,  28  Mass.  674, 

S.  C.  64  Am.  Dec.  114,  1232 

Jackson  v.  Jackson,  5  Cow.(N.Y.) 

173,  517 

Jackson  v.  King,  5  Cow.  237,  32 

Jackson  v.  Leggett,  7  AVend.  (N. 

Y.)  377,  1043 

Jackson  v.  Loomis,  12  W^end.  27,  918 
Jackson  v.  McVey,  18  Johns.  330,  910 
Jackson  v.  Moore,  13  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  513,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  398,  381 
Jackson  v.  Myers,  120  Ind.  504,  1179 
Jackson  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

15  Ind.  192,  435 

Jackson  v.  Olitz,  8  Wend.  440,  371 
Jackson  v.  Pell,  19  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

270,  624 

Jackson  v.  Pittsford,S  Blackf.  194,  676 
Jackson  v.  Pool,  91  Tenn,  448,  S.C. 

19  S.  W.  R.  324,  811 

Jackson  v.  Ramsey,  15  Am.  Dec. 

242.  468 

Jackson  v.  Reeve,  44  Ark.  496,  335 
Jackson  v.  Rice,  3  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

180,  512 

Jackson  v.  Rightmyre,  16  Johns. 

314,  371 


cxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Jackson  V.Robinson,  4  AVend.  436, 

242,  267 
Jackson  v.Sandman,18  N.Y.  Supp. 

8i)4,  655 

Jackson  School Tp.v.Shera  (Ind,), 

35  N.  E.  K.  842,  1072 

Jackson  v.  Shearman,  6  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  19,  506 

Jackson  V.  Smith,  120  Ind.  520, 

126,  133,  240,  260,  403 
Jackson  v.  State,  54  Ark.  243,  634 

Jackson  v.  State,  14  Ind.  327,  697 

Jackson  v.  State,  104  Ind.  516,  S. 

C.  3  N.  E.  R.  863,  322 

Jackson  v.  State,  6  Blackf .  (Ind.) 

461.  643 

Jackson  v.  State,  104  Ind.  516,  S. 

C.  3  N.  E.  R.  863,  426,  450 

Jackson  v.  Stiles.  1  Cowen  134,  1210 
Jackson  V.  Tozer,  154  Pa.  St.  223, 

S.  C.  26  Atl.  226,  1122 

Jackson  v.Wakeman,  2  Cow.  578,  619 
Jackson   v.  Williamson,  2  T.  R. 

281.  1122 

Jackson  v.  Woodruff,  57  Ark.  599, 

S   C.  22  S.  W.  R.  566,  1200 

Jacksonville,  T.  &  K.  W.  Ry.  Co. 
V.  Peninsular,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fla. 
1,  S.  C.  17  L.  R.  A.  33,  S.  C.  9. 
So.  R.  661,  515,  705,  1064 

Jacobs  V.  Allard,  42  Vt.  303,  483 

Jacobs  V.  Burgwin,  63  N.  Car.193,  191 
Jacobs  V.  Figard,  25  Pa.  St.  45,  544 
Jacobs  V.  Lavborn,   11  M.  &  W. 

685,  517 

Jacobs  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

Bush.  263,  158 

Jacobs  V.  Mitchell,   2  Col.   App. 

456,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  235,  1079 

Jacobson  v.    Allen,    12   Fed.  R. 

454  4^3 

Jacobson  v.  Metzger,  35  Mich .  103,  783 
Jacques  v.  Com.,  10  Gratt.  (Va.) 

690,  656 

Jacquay  v.  Hartzell,  1  Ind.  App. 

500,  1098 

James  v.  Belding,  33  Ark.  536,        337 
James  v.  Gillen.  3  Ind.  App.  472, 
C.  30  N.  E.  R.  7,  S.  C.  34  Cent. 
L.  Jour.  389,  535 

James  v.  Kiser,  65  Ga.  515,  680 

James  v.    McKernon,    6    Johns. 

543,  1185 

James  v.   McWilliams,   6  Munf. 

301  1134 

James  v.  Schroeder,  61  Mich.  28, 

S.  C.  27  N.  W.  R.  850,  _  593 

James  v.  State  to  use  of  Doss,  55 

Miss.  57,  S.  C.  30  Am.  R.  496,    1112 
James  v.  Stokes,  77  Va.  225,  248 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.-] 
Jameson  v.  Androscoggin  R.  R. 

Co.,  52  Me.  412,  668 

Jameson  v.Grimsham,25  111.  468,  1195 
Jameson  v.  Hudson,  82  Va.  279,  214 
Jameson  v.  Jameson,  72  Mo.  640,  360 
Jamieson  v.  Indiana  Natural  Gas 

Co.,  128  Ind.,  555,  120 

Jan's  Succession,  43  La.  Ann.  924, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  6,  220 

Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis. 
288,  8  Law.  R.  Anno.  805,  S.  C. 
46  N.  W.  R.  128,  390 

Janeway  v.  Holston,  19  Ore.  97,  1236 
Janitor,  In  re,  35  WMs.  410,  204 

Jansen  v.  Acker,  23  Wend.  N.  Y. 

480,  1042 

Januarv  v.  Duncan,  3  McLean  C. 

C.  19,  393 

Jaqua  v.  Cordesman,  etc.,Co.,  106 

Ind.  141,  529 

Jaques  v.  Bridgeport,  etc.,  Co.,  43 

Conn.  34,  153 

Jaquett  v.  Palmer,  2  Harr.  (Del.) 

144,  197 

Jarboe  v.  Severein,  112  Ind.  572, 

110,  1177 
Jarrard  v.  State,  116  Ind.  98,  294 

Jarrett's  Estate,  42  Ohio  St.  199,     189 
Jarrett    v.    Jarrett,    11    W.    Va. 

584,  1128 

Jarrett  v.  Stevens,  36  W.  Va.  445, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  177,  371,  372 

Jarvis  v.  Banta,  83  Ind.  528, 

1142,  1156,  1210,  1223 
Jarvis  v.  Barrett,  14  Wis.  591,  444 

Jarvis  v.  Mitchell,  99  Mass.  530,     476 
Jasper  v.  Schlesinger,  22  111.  Ai)p. 

637,  153,  lo6 

Jasper  County  v.  Wadlows  82  Mo. 

172  '^6 

Javnes,  Ex  parte,  70  Cal.  638,         414 
Jefferson    County   v.    Milwaukee 

County,  20  WMs.  139,  639 

Jefferson    County    v.    Savory,    2 

Greene  (la.)  238,  588 

Jefferson  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotheal,  7 
Wend.  72,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec. 
567,  738 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Avery,  31  Ind.  277,  633 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bowen, 

49  Ind.  154,  1243 

Jeffersonville,  M.  &  I.  R.  R-  Co. 

V.  Dunlap,  29  Ind.  426,  454 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hen- 

dricks,  41  Ind.  48,  174,  633 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mounts, 

7  Ind.  669,  591 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riley, 
39  Ind.  568,  798 


tablp:  of  cases. 


cxlix 


[Eeferrnces  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Jeffersonville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Swift, 

26  Ind.  459,  1067 

Jeffersonville  R.  R.  v.  White,  6 

Bush.  251,  365 

Jefford  V.  Ringgold,  G  Ala.  544,  506 
Jeffries  v.  McNamara,  49  Ind.  142,  183 
Jeffries  v.   New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

110  U.  S.  305,  564 

Jeffries  v.  Riidloff,  73  la.  60,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  St.  R.  (i54,  435,  436 

Jelley  v.  Gaff,  56  Ind.  331,  1197 

Jelley    v.    Roberts,    50     Ind.    1, 

1227,  1242 
Jellison  v.  Goodwin,  43  Me.  287, 

S.  C.  69  Am.  Dec.  2,  1067 

Jenison'v.  Roxburj*,  9  Gray  32,  1140 
Jenkins    v.    Anderson    (Pa.),    11 

Atl.  R.  558,  510 

Jenkins  v.  Betham,  15  C.  B.  168,  573 
Jenkins  v.  California  Stage  Co., 

22  Cal.  537,  626 

Jenkins  v.  Crevier,  50  N.J.L.  151,  337 
Jenkins  v.  Davis,  141  Pa.  St.  266, 

S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  592,  187 

Jenkins  v.  Gillespie,  10  Smed.  & 

M.    (Miss.)    31,    S.   C.   48   Am. 

Dec.  732,  582 

Jenkins  v.  Jenkins,  1  Paige  (N. 

Y.)  243,  495 

Jenkins    v.    Long,   23    Ind.   460, 

186,  191,  192 
Jenkins  v.  McCully,  Morris  (la.) 

447,  1195 

Jenkins  v.  Meagher,  46  Miss.  84,  599 
Jenkins  v.  Nolan,  79  Ga.  295,  301 

Jenkins  v.  Parkhill,  25  Ind.  473, 

1154,  1170 
Jenkins   v.    Richardson,   6  J.  J. 

Marsh.  (Ky.)  441,  S.  C.  22  Am. 

Dec.  82,  1116 

Jenkins  v.  State,  82  Ala.  25,  S. 

C.  2  So.  R.  150,  544 

Jenkins  v.  State,  31  Fla.  196,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  677,  662,  663 

Jenkins  v.  Tobin,  31  Ark.  306,  510 
Jenkins  v.  AVheeler,  4  Robt.  N. 

Y.  Supr.  575,  980 

Jenkins  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  110  N.  Car.  438,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  193,  813 

Jenks  V.  Osceola  Township,  45  la. 

554,  472 

Jenks V.  School  Dist.,  IS  Kan.  356, 

397, 1212 
Jenks  V.  State.  39  Ind.  1,  1232 

Jenks  V.  Stebbins,  11  Johns.  224,  329 
Jenne  v.  Burt,  121  Ind.  275,  178, 1208 
Jenners  v.  Spraker,  2  Iml.  App. 

100,  S.  C.  27  N.  K.  R.  117.  389 

Jennerson  v.  Garvin,  7  Kan.  136,    154 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1 244.-\ 
Jenness  v.  Berry,  17  N.  H.  549,       ,5.39 
Jennings  v.  Ashley,  5  Pike  (Ark.) 

128,  190 

Jennings  v.  Bank,  13  Col.  417,  112 
Jennings    v.    Durham,    101    Ind. 

391,  1230 

Jennings  v. First  Nat. Bank, 13  Col. 

417,  S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  210,       1043 
Jennings  v.  Greenwald,  20  Ind. 

408,  1201 

Jennings  v.  Jennings,  56  la.  288,  1 143 
Jennings  v.  Mendenhall,  7  Ohio 

St.  257,  404 

Jennings  V.  Prentice, 39 Mich.  421,  718 
Jennings  v.  Wood,  20  Ohio,  261,  34 
Jernigan  v.  State,  17  Fla.  690,  153 

Jersey  City  v.  State,  30  N.  J.  L. 

521,  366 

Jesse  v.  Cater,  28  Ala.  475,  598 

Jesse  V.  State,  20  Ga.  156,  668 

Jessiman  v.  Haverhill,  etc.,  Co., 

1  N.  H.  68,  574 

Jessup's  Estate,  Re,  81  Cal.  408, 

S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  594,  816 

Jessup  v.  Gragg,  12  Ga.  261,  436 

Jett's  Case,  18  Graft.  933,  308 

Jett  v.  Hempstead,  25  Ark.  462.  362 
Jewell  v.  Blandford,  7  Dana 473,  1170 
Jewell   v.  Chicago,  etc.,   Co  ,   54 

Wis.  610,  1088, 1093 

Jewell  v.  Commonwealth,  22  Pa. 

St.  94,  668 

Jewell  v.  Knight,  123  U.  S.  426,  540 
Jewell  v.  Parr,  13  C.  B.  909,  524, 1055 
Jewett  V.  Earle,  53  N.  Y.  Supr.  Ct. 

349,  400 

Jew^ett  V.  Garrett,  47  Fed.  R.  625, 

433  434 
Jew^ett  V.  Greene,  8  Me.  447,  '  378 

Jewett  v.  :\Iiller,  12  la.  85,  224 

Jewett  V.  -Aliller,  19  Tex.  290,  454,  457 
Jewett  V.  Osborne,  33  Neb.  24,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  774.  1239 

Jewett  V.  Perrette,  127  Ind.  97,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R. 685,  528 

Jim  V.  State,  3  Mo.  147,  639 

Jim  V.  State,  4  Humph.   (Tenn.) 

288,  812 

Joannes  v.  Underwood.  6  Allen 

241,  1236 

Jobbins  v.  Gray.  .34  111.  App.  208.  707 
Jocelvn  V.  Donne),  Peck  274.  S. 

C.  14  Am.  Dec.  753,  593,  600 

Joerns  v.  La  Nicca.  75  la.  705,  635 
Johann  v.  Rufener,  32  Wis.  195,  475 
Johannes  v.  Young,  42  Wis.  401, 

1183,  1203 
John  V.  State,  16  Fla.  5.54.  667 

John   Morris  Co.   v.  Burgess,  44 

111.  App.  27,  796 


cl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Johns  V.  Diividson,  1(5  Pa.  St.  512,     533 
Johns  V.  Hodges,  GO  Md.  215,  S.  C. 

45  Am.  R.  722,  666 

Johns  V.  Johns,  23  Ga.  31, 

195,  495,  496 
Johnson,  In  re,  12  Kan.  102,  213 

Johnson,  Ex  parte,  15  Neb.  512, 

S.  C.  19  N.  AV.  R.  594,  214 

Johnson  v.  Adleman,  35  111.  265,  1210 
Johnson  v.  Anderson,  76  Va.  766,  373 
Johnson  v.  Ashland,  etc.,  Co.,  47 

AVis.  326,  1090 

Johnson  v.   Bailey,   59  Fed.   R. 

670,  1046 

Johnson  v.  Beazlev,  65  Mo.  250, 

S.  C.  27  Am.  R.  276,  128,  314 

Johnson  v.   Boice,   40  La.  Ann. 

273,  S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  528,  519 
Johnson  v.  Brown,  51  Texas  65,  804 
Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co..  58  la.  348,  801 

Johnson  v.  Clark,  18  Kan.  157,  432 
Johnson  v.  Clem,  82  Ky.  84,  695 

Johnson  v.  Clendenin,  5  Gill  & 

J.  463,  476 

Johnson  v.  Corpenning,  4  Ired. 

Eq.  216,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  106,  314 
Johnson  v.  Crawfordsville,    etc., 

Co.,  11  Ind.  280,  1211 

Johnson  v.  Culver,  116  Ind.  278, 

738,  1107 
Johnson   v.    Davenport,  3   J.   J. 

Marsh.  390,  1124 

Johnson  v.  Dav,  17  Pick.  (Mass.) 

106,  435 
Johnson    v.   Dinsmore,   11   Neb. 

391,  1158 
Johnson  v.  Donaldson,  17  R.  I. 

107,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  242,  411 

Johnson  v.  Donnell,  15  111.  97,  436 
Johnson  v.  Duncan,  90  Ga.  1,  S.  C. 

16  S.  E.  R.  88,  1202 

Johnson  v.  Everett,  9  Paige  636,  1182 
Johnson  v.  Freeport,etc.,  Co.,  Ill 

111.  413,  1234 

Johnson  v.  Gage,  57  Mo.  160,  446 

Johnson  v.  Glascock,  2  Ala. 519,  1241 
Johnson  v.  Greim,  17  Neb.  447,  815 
Johnson  v.  Grissard,  51  Ark.  410, 

S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  795,  34 

Johnson  v.  Harmon,94  U.S.  371,  1128 
Johnson  v.  Hess,  126  Ind.  298,  1190 
Johnson  v.  Holliday,  79  Ind.  151,  668 
Johnson  v.Hosford.'llO  Ind.572,  1149 
Johnson  v.  Howe,  7  111.  342,  1112 

Johnson  v.  Husband,  22  Kan.  227, 

1118,  1119 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  80  Ga.  260,  380 
Johnson  v.  Johnson  (Tex.),  23  S. 

W.  R.  1022,  821 


.  1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  31  Fed.  R. 

700,  462 

Johnson  v.  Johnson, 115  Ind.112,  1212 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  26  Ind.  441,  474 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  23  Fla.  413, 

S.  C.  2  So.  R.  834,  456 

Johnson  v.  Joliet,  23  111.  202,  424 

Johnson  v.  Joliet,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

23  111.  124,  425 

Johnson  v.  Jones,  2  Neb.  126,  455 
Johnson  v.  Josephs,  75  Me.  544,  675 
Johnson  v.  Kilgore,  39  Ind.  147,  529 
Johnson  v.  Kimbro,  3  Head.  551, 

S.  C.  75  Am.  Dec.  781,  281 

Johnson  v.  Labarge,  46  Mo.  App. 

433,  1113 

Johnson  v.  Little  Horse,  etc.,  Co. 

(Wyo.),  33  Pac.  R.  22,  1220 

Johnson  v.  Lough,  22  Minn.  203,  442 
Johnson  v.  Mason,  27  Mo.  511,  179 
Johnson  v.  Maxwell,  87  N.  Car.  18, 

669,  676 
Johnson  v.  Maxwell,  2  Wash.  482, 

S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1071,  483 

Johnson  v.  McCabe,  42  Miss.  255,  443 
Johnson  v.  McCulloch,89Ind.  270, 

1166,  1217,  1220 
Johnson  v.  Merry  Mount  Granite 

Co.,  53  Fed.  R.  569,  714 

Johnson  v.  Miller,  82  la.  693,  S.  C. 

47  N.  W.  R.  903,  552,  1097 

Johnson  v.  Missouri  Pac.R.  R.Co., 

18  Neb.  690,  S.  C.  26  N.  W.  R. 

347,  1056 

Johnson  v.  Moffett,  19  Mo.  App. 

159,  636 

Johnson  v.  Moss,  45  Cal.  515,  1055 
Johnson  v.  Nevill,  65  N.  C.  677,  33 
Johnson  v.  Noble,  13  N.  H.  286,  S. 

C.  38  Am.  Dec.  485,  575, 578,  584,  593 
Johnson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Minn.  30,  S.  C.  38  N.  W.  R.  804, 

254,  1184 
Johnson  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  R. 

Co.,  1  N.  Dak.  354,  S.  C.  48  N. 

W.  R.  227,  1082 

Johnson  v.  Oakes,  80  Ga.  722,  S.  C. 

6  S.  E.  R.  274,  1121 

Johnson  v.  Parrotte,  34  Neb.  26, 

S.  C.  51  N.  AV.  R.  290,  1124 

Johnson  v.  Pate,  90  N.Car.  334,  1178 
Johnson  v.  Patterson,  59  Ind. 237,  434 
Johnson  v.  People,  140  111.  350,  S. 

29  N.  E.  R.  895,  1069 

Johnson  v.  Perry,  54  Vt.  459,  508 

Johnson  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co., 

47  Ohio  St.  318,  S.  C.  24  N.  E. 

R.  493,  152,  153 

Johnson  v.  Polk  Co.,  24  Fla.  28, 

S.  C.  3  So.  R.  414,  1188 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cli 


\^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  { 
Johnson  v.  Prine,  55  Ind.  351,  1202 
Johnson  v.  Putnam,  1)5  Ind.  57,  1104 
Johnson  v.  Richardson,  52  Tex. 

481,  656 

Johnson  v.  Rider,  84  la.  50,  S.  C. 

50  N.  W.  R.  36,  1121 

Johnson  v.  Rutherford,  10  Pa.  St. 

455,  364 

Johnson  v.  Rohumacher,  72  Tex. 

334,  S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  207,  380,  541 
Johnson  v.  Scribner,  6  Conn.  185,  910 
Johnson  v.  State,  63  Miss.  313,  820 
Johnson  v.  State,  43  Ark.  391,  1164 
Johnson  v.  State,  21  Tex.  App.368,  646 
Johnson  v.  State,  10  Tex.   App. 

571,  696 

Johnson  v.  State,  1  Tex.App.333,  33 
Johnson  v.  State,  48  Ga.  116,  798 

Johnson  v.  State,  59  Ga.  142,  822 

Johnson  v.  State,  61  Ga.  305,  804 

Johnson  v.  State,  14  Ga.  55, 

179,  695,  918 
Johnson  v.  Swayze,  35  Neb.  117, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  835,  162,  178 

Johnson  v.  Tavlor,  106  Ind.  89,  1129 
Johnson  v.Tlie  Board. 107  Ind. 15,  121 
Johnson  v.  Turner  (Md.),  22  Atl. 

R.  1103,  551 

Johnson  v. Weed,  9  Johns. (N.Y.) 

310,  S.  C.  (>  Am.  Dec.  279,  550 

Johnson  v.  Whidden.  32  Me.230,  919 
Johnson  v.Whitlock,13  N.Y.344,  1134 
Johnson  v.  Whitman,  etc.,  Co.,  20 

Mo.  App.  100,  556 

Johnson  v.  Van  Velsor,  43  Mich. 

208,  412 
Johnston  v.  Cheape,  5  Dow  P.  C. 

247,  590 

Johnston  v.  Hudlestone,  4  B.  & 

C.  922,  411 

Johnston  v.  Jones,  1  Black  (U.S.) 

209,  698,  704 
Johnston  v.  McCain,  145  Pa.  St. 

531,  S.  C.  22  Atl,  R.  979,  362 

Johnston  v.  San  Francisco  Savings 

Ass'n,  63  Cal.  554,  443 

Johnston  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.. 

Union,  75  Cal.  134,  S.  C.  7  Am. 

St.  R.  129,  1146 

Johnston  v.  Smith,  83  Ga.  779,  S. 

C.  10  S.  E.  R.  354,  1142 

Johnston  v.  State,  128  Ind.  16, 

136,  137 
Johnston  v.  Willey,  21  111.  App. 

354,  555 

Johnston  Harvester  Co. v. Bartlev, 

81  Ind. 406,  '       71 

Johnstone  V.  Beattie,  10  CI.  &  Fin. 

42.  290 

Johnstone  v.  Sutton,  1  T.  R.545,    552 


^  1-002,  Vol.  II,  §§  603-1244.] 
Joiner  v.  Ocean   Steamship   Co., 

86  CJa.  238,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  361,  552 
Joint   School  Dist.  v.  Kemen,  68 

Wis.  246,  1183 

Jolley  v.  Foltz,  34  Cal.  321,  158 

Joliet,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Velie,  140  111. 

59,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  1086,  1025 

Joliet  Steel  Co.  v.  Shields,  32  111. 

Ai)p.  598.  536,  1032,  1033,  1052 

Jolly  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  Co.,  9 

hid. 417,  1217 

Jonas  v.  Field,  83  Ala.  445,  S.  C. 

3  So.  R.  893,  1067 
Jones'  Estate,  27  Pa.  St.  336,  1190 
Jones,  Ex  parte,  8  Cow.  123,  1225 
Jones,  Ex  parte,  61  Ala.  399,  189 
Jones  v.  Acre,  Minor  5,  1191 
Jones  V.  Adams,  17  Nev.  84,  1165 
Jones  V.  Alephsin,  16  Ves.  470,  476 
Jones  V.  Alley,  4  Greene  (la.)  181,  532 
Jones  V.  Andrews,  10  Wall  327,  332 
Jones  V.  Bailey,  5  Cal.  345,  583 
Jones  V.  Baird,  76  Ind.  164,  1108 
Jones  V.  Bank,  10  Col.  464,  494 
Jones  V.  Beverly,  45  Ala.  162,  610 
Jones  V.  Binns,"27  Miss.  373,  584 
Jones  V.  Boston  Mill  Corporation, 

4  Pick.  507,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec. 
358,  598 

Jones  V.Boston  Mill  Corp.,  6  Pick. 

(Mass.)  148,  584 

Jones  V.  Brouse,  32  W.  Va.  444,  S. 

C.  9  S.  E.  R.  873,  410 

Jones  V.  Butterworth,  3  N.  J.  L, 

345,  667 

Jones  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

36  la. 68,  628,  630 

Jones  V.  Christian,  24  Mo.  App. 

540,  1238 

Jones  V.  Conowav.  4  Yeates  109,  367 
Jones  V.  Craig,  127  U.  S.  213,  1178 
Jones  V.  Davenport,  45  N,  J.  Eq. 

77,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  570,  245, 1185 
Jones V.  Dewev,  17  N.  II.  596,  594, 596 
Jones  V.  Deyer,  16  Ala.  221,  582 

Jones  V.  Dipert,  123  Ind.  594,  633,634 
Jones  V.  Driskill,  94  Mo.  190,  S. 

C.  7S.  W.  R.  Ill,  299 

Jones  V.  Fletcher.  42  Ark.  422,  271 
Jones  V.  Freeman.  29  Md.  273,  1200 
Jones  V.  Frost.  28  Cal.  245,  632 

Jones  V.  Fruin,  26  Neb.  76,  S.  C.  42 

N.  AV.  R.  2S3,  544 

Jones  v.  Grand  Trunk  Rv.  Co.,  74 

Me.  356,  '  368 

Jones  v.  Gregg,  17  Ind.  84,  362,  392 
Jones  V.  Harris.  .59  Miss.  214,  585 

Jones  V.  Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  88  N. 

Car.  499.  440 

Jones  V.  Hathaway,  77  Ind.  14,     1211 


clii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Jones  V.    Hoar,   5   Pick.  (Mass.) 

285,  399 

Jones  V.  Horsey,  4  Md.  306,  S.  C. 

59  Am.  Dee.  81,  582 

Jones  V.  Jones,  3  Dev.  Law  360,  341 
Jones  V.  Jones,  18  Ala.  248,  373 

Jones  V.  Jones,  1  Bland  Ch.  443, 

S.  C.  18  Am.  Dee.  327,  197,198 

Jones  V.  Jones,  62  N.  H.  463,  534 

Jones  V.  Jones,  108  N.  Y.  415, 

287,  609,  611 
Jones  V.  Julian,  12  Ind.  274,  1113 

Jones  V.  Keen,  115  Mass.  170,  152 

Jones  V.  Knauss,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  211,  457 
Jones  V.  Lamar,  39  Fed.  R.  585,  1128 
Jones  V.  Lavman,  123  Ind.  569,  S. 

C    24  N.  E.  R.  363,  1165,  1230 

Jones  V.  Lewis,  11  Tex.  359,  363 

Jones  V.  Macon,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Ga. 

138,  488 

Jones   V.    ^NLalvern    Lumber    Co. 

(Ark.),23S.  W.  R.  679,  799 

Jones  V.  Marsh,  4  Term  R.  464,  411 
Jones  V.  McNarrin,  68  Me.  334,  S. 

C.  28  Am.  R.  66,  498,  1190 

Jones  V.  Minon^e,  29  Ark.  637,  1192 
Jones  V.  Mullinix,  25  la.  98,  400 

Jones  V.  Null,  9  Neb.  57,  1198 

Jones  V.  Old    Dominion    Cotton 

Mills,  82  Va.  140,  S.  C.  3  Am. 

St.  R.  92,  1025,  1027, 

Jones  V.  Osgood,  6  N.  Y.  233,  1079 
Jones  V.  Parker,  20  N.  H.  31,  31 

Jones  V.  Pashbv,  62  Mich.  614,  S. 

C.  29  N.  W.  R.  374,  ^  1055 

Jones  V.  Pemberton,  7   N.   J.  L, 

350,  310 

Jones  V.  People,  2  Col.  351, 

661 ,  795,  802 
Jones  V.  Phoenix  Bank,  8  N.  Y. 

228,  581 

Jones  V.  Planters'  Bank,5  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  619,  379 

Jones  V.  Ransom,  3  Ind.  327,  206 

Jones  V.  Reed,  3  Wash.  57,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  1067,  119 

Jones  V.  Schall,  45  Mich.  379,  195, 496 
Jones  V.  Smith,  64  Ga.  711,  1124 

Jones  V.  Smith,  40  Fed.  R.  314,  499 
Jones  V.  Smith,  14  Mich.  334,  337 

Jones  V.  Smith,  64  N.  Y.  180,  707 

Jones  V.  Snodgrass,  54  Mo.  597,  254 
Jones  V.  State,  112  Ind.  193,  1211 

Jones  V.  State,  118  Ind.  39, 

712,  713,  721,  1215 
Jones  V.  State,  89  Ind.  82,  1124,  1159 
Jones  V.  State,  3   Blackf.  (Ind.) 

37,  663 

Jones  V.  State,  57  Miss.  684,  657 

Jones  V.  State,  11  Ind.  357,  638 


1-602,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  603-7244.] 
Jones  V.  State,  90  Ga.  616,  S.  C.  16 

S.  E.  R.  380,  652 

Jones  V.  Talbot,  4  Mo.  279,  1076 

Jones  V.  Temple,  87  Va.  210,  S.  C. 

12  S.  E.  R.  404,  392 

Jones  V.  The  Church,  etc.,  15  Neb. 

81,  S.  C.  17  N.  W.  R.  362,  146,164 
Jones  V.  Trimble,  3  Rawle  381,  363 
Jones  V.  Tucker,  41  N.  H.  546,  740 
Jones  V.  Turner,  81  Va.  709,  1047 

Jones  V.  Tumour,  4  C.  &  P.  204,  31 
Jones  V.  United  States,  137  U.  S. 

202,  309 

Jones  V.  Van  Patten,  3  Ind.  107, 

1168,  1219 
Jones  v.Vansandt,2  McLean  611,  1122 
Jones  V.  Walker,  5  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

457,  1203 

Jones  V.  Walker,  5  Tex.  427,  183 

Jonesv.Weathersbee,4Strob.  50,  1042 
Jones  V.  Welwood,  71  N.  Y.  208,  595 
Jones,  etc.,  v.  Case,  26  Kan.  299, 

S.  C.  40  Am.  R.  310,  196 

Jonssonv.Lindstrom,114  Ind. 152, 1200 
Joplin  V.  Postlethwaite,  61  L.  T. 

R.  629,  594 

Jordan  v.  Faircloth,  34  Ga.  47,  1178 
Jordan  v.  Giblin,  12  Cal.  100,  298 

Jordan  v.  Petty,  5  Fla.  326,  190 

Jordan  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  42 

Minn.  172,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  573, 

1097,  1149 
Jordan    v.   The   Bank,    11    Neb. 

499,  33 

Jorgensen  v. Griffin, 14  Minn.464,  1190 
Joseph  V.  Com. (Ky.),  IS.W.  Rep. 

4,  618 

Joseph  V.  Macowsky,  96  Cal.  518,  1141 
J.osephi   V.   Mady    Clothing    Co. 

(Mont.),  33  Pac.  R.  1,  1114 

Josephine  v.  State,  39  Miss.  613,  662 
Joslin  V.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co., 

53  Mich.  322,  698,  704 

Joslin  V.  Wheeler,  62  N.  H.  169,  621 
Joss  V.  Mohn  (N.  J.),  26  Atl.  R. 

987,  518 

Joy  V.  Deifendorf,  130  N.  Y.  6,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  484,  1057 

Joy  V.  Sears,  9  Pick.  (Mass.)  4,  553 
Joy  V.  State,  14  Ind.  139,  800 

Joyce  V.  Joyce,  5  Cal.  449, 

319,320,1196 
Joyce  V.  McAvoy,  31  Cal.  273,  S. 

C.  89  Am.  Dec.  172,  293 

Joyce  V.  State,  7  Baxt.  273,  1119,  1120 
Joyce  v.Whitney,57  Ind..550,  434,  640 
Judah  y.  Dyott,  3  Blackf.  324,  S. 

C.  25  Am.  Dec.  112,  362,395 

Judah  v.Vincennes  University,  23 
Ind.  272,  637,  639,  675 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cliii 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Jiiddv.Claremont(N.  H.),".^3Atl. 

R.  427,  (5(51 

Judge  V.  Everts,  04  Wis.  372,  300 

Judge  V.  Leclaire,  31  Mo.  127,         539 
Judges,  etc.,  v.  People,  18  Wend. 

79,  170 

Judv  V.Gilbert,  77  Ind.  90,  S.  C.  40 

Am.  Rep.  289,  71 

Junction  City  v.  Keefe,  40  Kan. 

275,  004 

Juneman,  Ex  parte,  28  Tex.  App. 

480,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  783,  154 

Jupitz  V.  People,  34  111.  510,  33 

Justice  V.  Lang,  52  N.  Y.  323,  101 


K 


Kahn  v.  Central  Smelting  Co.,  2 

Utah,  371,  535 

Kahn  v.  Cook,  22  111.  App.  559,  388 
Kalin  V.  Kuhn,  44  Ark.  404,  429 

Kaiine  v.  TriKstees,  49  Wis.  371,  819 
Kaine,  In  re,  14  How.(U.8.)103,  250 
Kaiser  V.  Beenier   (Pa.),   13  Atl. 

R.  909  533 

Kaiser  v'.  Keller,  21  la.  95,  194 

Kaley  v.  Musgrave,  20  111.  App. 

509,  388 

Kalk  v.  Fielding,  50  Wis.  339,  179 
Kaniaha,  In   re,   2   Hawaiian  R. 

444,  304 

Kambieskev  v.  State,  20  Ind.  225, 

182,  183 
Kaminskv,  In  re,  70  Mich.  053,  S. 

C.  38  N".  W.  R.  059,  341 

Kane  v.  Bloodgood,  7  Johns.  Ch. 

90  S.  C.  11  Am.  Dec.  417,      372,  377 
Kane  v.  Citv  of  Brooklyn,  114  N. 

Y.  580,      '  450 

Kane  v.  Desmond.  03  Cal.  464,  317 
Kane  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  40  Wis.  405, 

581,591,593 
Kane  v.  McCown,  55  Mo.  181,  440 
Kane  v.  Rv.  Co.,  128  U.  S.  91,  S. 

C.  OSupICt.  R.  10,  ■  1050 

Kane  v.   Vanderburgh,   1   Johns. 

Ch.  11,  485 

Kankakee  Drainage  Dist.  v.  Lake 

Fork  Spec.  Drainage  Dist.,  29 

Hi.  App.  80,  454 

Kansas  v.  Knotts,  78  Mo.  350,  214,219 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  W.  Co.  v.  Little, 

19  Kan.  207,  914 

Kansas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller.  2  Col. 

Ty.  442.  29 

Kansas  Citv  v.  Bradburv,45  Kan. 

381,  S.  C!  23  Am.  St.  R.  731,       1004 
Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cravens, 

43  Kan.  050,  1027 


J-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00S-I244.'] 
Kansas  City,  etc.,   R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Crocker,  95  Ala.  412,  S.  C.  11 

So.  R.  202,  1071 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Daiightrv",  138  U.  S.  298,  S.  C. 
11  Sup.  ("t.  R.  300,  441 

Kansas  Citv,  etc.,   R.   R.   Co.  v. 

Kirksey,  00  Fed.  R.  999,  1050 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phillips, 

98   Ala.    159,  S.   C.    13   So.    R. 

05,  1123 

Kansas  City,  etc.,    R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Ryan  (Kan.),  30  Pac.  R.  108,  1070 
Kansas  Citv  Transfer  Co.  v.  Neis- 

wanger,  27  Mo.  App.  350,  399 

Kansas  Farmers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Haw- 
ley,  40  Kan.  740,  S.  C.  27  Pac. 

R.  170,  721,  1206 

Kansas  Pac.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Mihlman, 

17  Kan.  224,"  370 

Kansas  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pointer, 

14  Kan.  37,  1091,  1094,  1109 

Kansas  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pointer, 

9  Kan.  020,  712 

Karcher  v.  Pearce,  14  Col.  557,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  508,  639 

Karle  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  55  Mo.  476,  547 

Karnes  v.  Alexander,  92  Mo.  660, 

S.  C.  4  S.  W.R.518,  317 

Karr  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.    R.  Co. 

(la.),  54  N.  W.  R.  144,  1075 

Karthaus  v.  Ferrer,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

222,  583, 596 

Kase  V.  Best,  15  Pa.  St.  101,  S.  C. 

53  Am.  Dec.  573,  183,  1192 

Kassebaum  v.  State,  44  Ind.  408,    055 
Kaiiffman  v.  Kennedy,  25  Fed.  R. 

785,  '  457 

Kaiiffman  v.  Wootters,  138  U.  S. 

285,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  298,  014 
Kaufman  v.  Wilson,  29  Ind.  504.  413 
Kaw  Vallev  LifeAss'n  v.  Lemke, 

40  Kan.  "l42,  S.   C.  19  Pac.  R. 

337,  007,  009 

Kay  V.  Noll,  20  Neb.  380,  1W2 

Kay  V.  Watson,  17  Ohio  27,  451 

Kavser  v.  Trustees  of  Breman,  16 

Mo.  88,  144 

Keagle  v.  Pessell,  91   Mich.  018, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  58.  504 

Kealing  v.  Spink,  3  Ohio  St.  105.     270 
Kealing  v.  Van   Sickle,  74    Ind. 

529,  1109.  1142 

Kean  v.  Colt.  5  N.  J.  Eq.  365,  406 

Keane   v.  Waterford.  130  N.  Y. 

188,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  130,  534 

Kearnev  v.  Case,  12  Wall.  275,      1131 
Kearnev  v.  The  Mavor,  92  N.  Y. 

017.    "  ■  414,  504 


cliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  air  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Kearney   v.    Snodgrass,    12   Ore. 

311,  S.  C.  7  Pac.  R.  309,  1181 

Keesey  v.  Old,  82  Tex.  22,  S.  C. 

17  S.  W.  R.  928,  539 

Keater,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Croix,  etc., 

Co.,  7  Am.  St.  R.  837,  1041 

Keaton  v.  Mulligan,  43  Ga.  308,  597 
Keator  v.  People,  32  Mich.  484,  803 
Keats    V.    Keats,  28  L.  J.   Mat. 

Cases  169,  24 

Keats  V.  Keats,  32  Law  Times  321,  52 
Keech  v.  Enriquez,  28   Fla.  597, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  91,  381,1076 

Keedy  v.  Newcomer,  1  Md.  241,  714 
Keegan  v.  Geraghtv,  101  111.  26,  291 
Keeler  v.  Frost,  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

400,  592 

Keeler  v.  Harding,  23  Ark.  697,  597 
Keeler  v.  Stead,  56  Conn.  501,  235 
Keeline  v.  Council  Bluffs,  62  la. 

450,  1139 

Keen  v.  Breckenridge,  96  Ind.  69, 

410,  493 
Keen  v.  Briggs,  46  Me.  467,  436 

Keen  v.  Qupeu,  10  Q.  B.  927,  152 

Keen  v.  Schnedler,  92  Mo.  516,  641 
Keene  v.  McDonough,  8  Pet.  308,  145 
Keene  v.  Welch,  8  Mont.  305,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  25,  187 

Keener  v.Goodson,  89  N.  Car.  273,  183 
Keener  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34 

Fed.  R.  871,  1162 

Keener  v.   Zartman,  144  Pa.  St. 

179,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  889,  382 

Keenev  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  71  N. 

Y.  396,  S.  C.  27  Am.  R.  60,  193 

Keepfer  v.  Force,  86  Ind.  81, 

190,  1182 
Keerl  v.  Bridgers,  10  Sm.  &  M. 

(Miss.)  612,  551 

Keesling  v.  Dovle  (Ind.),  35  N. 

E.  R. 126,       "  713 

Keeton  v.  Keeton,  20  Mo.  530,  381 
Kegg  V.  Welden,  10  Ind.  550,  603 

Kehoe  v.  Blethen,  10  Nev.  445,  1203 
Kehoe  v.  Burns,  84  Wis.  372,  S.  C. 

54  N.  W.  R.  731,  1140 

Kehr  v.  Hall  117  Ind.  405,  409,  1147 
Keith  V.  Edwards,  42  111.  App.  250, 

1195 
Keith  V.  Knoche,  43  111.  App.  161, 

623 
Keith  V.  Sands,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Mich. 

172,  S.  C.  50N.  W.  R.  133,  537 

Keith  V.  State,  91  Ala.  2,  S.  C.  10 

L.  R.  A.  430,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  353, 

152 
Keith  V.  State,  49  Ark.  439,  236 

Keith  V.  Wilson,  6  Mo.  435,  S.  C. 

35  Am.  Dec.  443,  179,  697 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Keithler  v.  Foster,  22  Ohio  St.  27, 

360 
Kell  V.  Brillinger,  84  Pa.  St.  276,  652 
Kellam  v.  Toms,  38  Wis.  592,  431 

Kellar  v.  Stanley,  86  Ky.  240,  S. 

C.  5  S.  W.  R.  477,  361,  431 

Kellenberger  v.  Perrin,  46    Ind. 

282,  1195,  1231 

Keller  v.  Boatman,  49  Ind.  104, 

529,  1104 
Keller  v.  Gaskill  (Ind.),  36  N.  E. 

R.  303,  1106 

Keller  v.  Stevens,  66  Md.  132,  S. 

C.  6  Atl.  R.  533,  1171 

Kelley  v.  Adams,  120  Ind.  340,  S. 

C.  22  N.  E.  R.  317,  576,  594 

Kelley  v.  Bennett,  132  Pa.  St.  218, 

S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  594,  1044 

Kelley  v.  Burns,  36  la.  507,  1146 

Kelley  v.  Drurv,  9  Allen  27,  284 

Kelley  v.  Highfield,  15  Ore.  277,  804 
Kelley  v.  Kelley  (Ind.),  36  N.  E. 

R.  165,  1167 

Kelley  v.  Pelham,  etc.,  Co. ,67  Hun 

650,  1041 

Kelley  v.   Richardson,  69   Mich. 

430,  S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  514,  741 

Kelley  v.  Stanberry,  13  Ohio  408, 

1187 
Kelley  v.  Wevmouth,  68  Me.  197,  473 
Kellev  V.  Ryiis,  48  Kan.  120,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  144,  1056 

Kelloggv.Anderson,40  Minn.  207,  33 
Kellogg  V.  Carrico,  47  Mo.  157,  449 
Kellogg  V.  Clyne,  54  Fed.  R.  696, 

1067 
Kellogg  V.  Fancher,  23  Wis.  21, 

S.  C.  99  Am.  Dec.  96,  498 

Kellogg  V.  Freeman,  50  Miss.  127, 

473, 474 
Kellogg  V.  Johnson,  38  Conn.  269,  325 
Kellogg  V.  Nelson,  5  Wis.  125,  180,  783 
Kellogg  V.  Stockton,  29  Pa.  St.  460,  413 
Kellv,  In  re,  46  Fed.  R.  653,  308 

Kelly  V.  Bemis,  4  Gray  83,  S.  C.  64 

Am.  Dec.  50,  145 

Kelly  V.  Crawford,  5  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

785,  583 

Kelly  V.  Duffy  (Pa.), 11  Atl.  R.  244,  558 
Kelly  V.  Gilman,  29  N.  H.  385,  S. 

C.  61  Am.  Dec.  648,  432 

Kelly  y.  Harrison,  69  Miss.  856,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  261,  434 

Kelly  y.  Hockett,  10  Ind.  299,  639 
Kelly  y.  Kelly,  3  Barb.  419,  1225 

Kelly  y.  I\Iorse,  3  Neb.  224,  599 

Kelly  V.  State,  1  Tex.  App.  628,  33 
Kelly  y.  State,  92  Ind.  236,  121 

Kelly  y.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim.  R. 

211,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  357,  1081 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clv 


[Jicfcrcnce.s  are  tu  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Kelsea  v.  Haines,  41  N.  II.  246,  560  I 
Kelsey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ky.  Co., 

1  S.  Dak.  80,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R. 

204,  1113 

Kelsey  v.  Forsythe,  21  How.  (U. 

S.)  85,  255 

Kelsey  v.  Lavne,  28  Kan.  218.  801,  802 
Kelsey  v.  Western,  2  N.  Y.  500, 

254, 1178 
Kelsey  v.  Wiley,  10  Ga.  371,  315 

Kelso  V.  Stigar,  75  Md.  376,  S.  C. 

24  Atl.  Rep.  18,  605 

Kemmerer  v.  Edelman,  23  Pa.  St. 

143,  559 

Kemna  v.  Brockhaus,  10  Biss.  128,  312 
Kemp  V.  State,  18  Tex.  App.561,  544 
Kenipe  v. Crews,  1  Ld.Raym.lG7,  1155 
Kempe  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cranch  173, 

128, 131 
Kemper  v.  Campbell,  45  Kan.  529, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  53,  

Kemper  v.   Louisville,   14  Bush. 

(Ky.)  87,  654 

Kendall  v.  Bates,  35  Me.  357,  582,  596 
Kendall  v.  City  of  Albia,  73   la. 

243,  S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  833,  654 

Kendall  v.  Hamilton,  4  L.  R.  App. 

Cases  504,  1195 

Kendall  v.  Limberg,  69  111.  355,  510 
Kendall  v.  Mather,  48  Tex.  585,  245 
Kendall   v.    Post,   8   Ore.   141, 

643,  1129 
Kendall  v.  Powers,  4  Metef.  553,  342 
Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet. 

524,  241 

Kendrick,   Matter  of,  107  N.  Y. 

104,  383 

Com.,  78  Va.  490,        781 
Louisiana,  92  U.  S. 

423,  424 
Anderson,   98   Ind 


Kendrick  v. 
Kennard  v. 

480, 
Kennedy   v 

151, 
Kennedy   v 

Ky.  447, 


Commonwealth,    78 


1199 
631 


228,  231 
Kennedy  v. Cunningham,  2  Metcf. 

(Ky.)  538,  173 

Kennedy  v.   Derrickson,  5  Wash. 

289,  S.'  C.  31  Pac.  R.  766, 

530,  637,  1136,  1146,  1150 
Kennedy  v.  Georgia  State  Bank, 

8  How.  586,  ■  128,  132 

Kennedy  v.  Gibbs,  15  Til.  406,         553 
Kennedy  v.  Giles,  25  Mich.  83, 

214,  219 
Kennedy  v.  Green,  3  Mylne  &  K. 

699,     "  549 

Kennedy  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co. 

3  Fed."  R.  97,  410 

Kennedy   v.    Kennedy,  25    Kan. 

151,     '  ■  372 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.'\ 
Kennedy  v.  Kennedy,  18  N.  J.  L. 

450,  1119 

Kennedy  v.  Mayor,  65  Md.  514,  543 
Kennedy   v.    McNichoIs,  29  Mo. 

App.  11,  149,  234,  1147 

Kennedy  v.  Merriam,  70  111.  228,  430 
Kennedy  v.  People,  40  111.  488, 

823,  824,  918 
Kennedy  y.  Rvall,  67  N.  Y.  379,  544 
Kennedy  y.  State,  'M  Ind.  ::555,  1231 
Kennedy  v.  State,  53  Ind.  542,  232 
Kennedy  v.  Thorp,  51  N.  Y.  174,  353 
Kenney    v.    Sweeney,    14    R.    I. 

581,  1149 

Kennedy  y.  Upshaw,  66 Tex.  442,  679 
Kegg  v.'Welden,  10  Ind.  550,  607 

Kenney  v.  Apgar,  93  N.  Y.  539,  1131 
Kenney  v.  Phillipy,  91  Ind.  511,  159 
Kennon  y.  Gilmer,  131  U.  S.  22,  630 
Kenn's  Case,  7  Coke  138,  274 

Kenosha  Stoye  Co.  v.  Shedd,  82 

la.  540,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  933,     712 
Kent  V.  Payor  (N.  Mex.),  5  Pac. 

R.  470,  622 

Kent  y.  French   76  la.  187,  S.  C. 

40  N.  W.  R.  713,  591 

Kent  V.  Lawson,  12  Ind.  675, 

1158,  1169,  1212 
Kent  y.  Lincoln,  32  Vt.  591,  706 

Kent  y.  Mahaffy,  2  Ohio  St.  498, 

257,  486 
Kent  y.  West,  50  Cal.  185,  608 

Kent's    Admr.   v.    Kent,    82  Va. 

205,  1185 

Kenton  y.  Spencer,  0  Ind.  321,  620 
Kentucky,  etc.,  v.  Kenney,  82  Ky. 

154,  "     233 

Kentucky  Eclectic  Inst.  y.  Gaines 

(Ky.),  1  S.  W.  R.  444,  459,  460 

Kentucky,  etc.,  Co.  y.  ]McKinney 

(Ind.),  36N.  E.  R.  448.  "1096 

Kentucky,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Smith,  93 

Ky.  -— ,  S.  C.  18  L.  R.  A.  63,     1166 
KenUvorthy  v.  Peffiat,  4  B.  &  A. 

288,  "  432 

Kenvon  v.  Knights  Templar,  etc., 

Assn.,  122  N.^Y.  247.  538 

Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Donnell,  77 

la.  221,  S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  176, 

113.  332,  1214 
Kerlev  v.West,  3  Litt.  (Ky.)  362,  1054 
Kerlick  v.  Meyer,  84  Tex.  158,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  379,  1069 

Kermeyer  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  18 

Kan."  215,  1181 

Kern  y.  Bridwell,  119  Ind.  226,  714 
Kern  v.  Wvatt  (Va.),  17  N.  E.  R. 

549.  558 

Kern  Valley  Bank  y.  Chester,  55 

Cal.  49,   ■  619 


clvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
Kern  VallevWater  Co.  v.  McCord, 

70  Cal.  (54(1.  640 

Kernodle  v.  Gibson,  114  Ind.  451,  1156 
Kerr  v.  Bank,  4  N.  J.  L.  303,  626 

Kerr  v.  Hitt,  75  111.  51,  449 

Kerr  v.  Kerr,  41  N.  Y.  272,  287 

Kerr  v.  Lunsford,  31  W.  Va.  660, 

5  C  2  L.  K.  A.  668,  1064,  1069,  1087 
Kerr  v.  MeGuire,  28  N.  Y.  446,  506 
Kerr  v.  South  Park,  etc.,  117  U.  S. 

379,  1128 

Kerr  v.  Whituker,  3  N.  J.  L.  106,  635 
Kerrains  v.  People,  60  N.  Y.  221, 

544,  7.38 
Kershaw  v.  Mathews,  1  Russ.  362,  496 
Kershaw  v.AVright,115  Mass.361,  1232 
Ketcham  v.  Brazil,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

Ind.  515,  1163 

Ketcham  v.  Hill,  42  Ind.  64, 

.383,  518,  1240 
Ketchin  v.  Landecker,  32  S.  Car. 

155,  462 

Ketchman  v.  Brazil,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

Ind.  515,  668 

Ketchum  v.White,  72  la.  193,  S.  C. 

33  N.  W.  R.  627,  245 

Kettering  v.  Citv  of  Jacksonville, 

.50  111.  39,         '  144 

Key  V.  Lynn,  4  Litt.  (Ky.)  338,  738 
Kevbers  V.    McComber,   67    Cal. 

395,  317 

Keyes  v.  Fulton,  42  Vt.  159,  585 

Keyes  v.  Grant,  118  U.  S.  25,  S.  C. 

6  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  974,  542 
Keyes  v.  State,  122  Ind.  527, 

.30,  206,  780 
Kevser  v.  Farr,  105  U.  S.  265,  255 

Keyset  v.  Mitchell,  67  Pa.  St.  473,  471 
Keyser  v.  Renner,  87  Va.  249,  S. 

C.  12  S.  E.  R.  406,  409 

Kevser  v.  Rice,  47  Md.  203,  282 

Keystone  Brewing  Co.  v.  Walker 

(Pa.),  11  Atl.  R.  650,  559 

Keystone,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  1.32 

U.  S.  91,  1187 

Kibbe  v.  Benson,  17  Wall.  (U.S.) 

624,  438 

Kibler  v.  Mcllwain,  16  So.  Car. 

5.50,  783 

Kidd  v.  Brown,  2  How.  Pr.  20,  443 
Kidd  V.  Daughertv,  59  ]Mifh.  240,  434 
Kidd  V.  Harris,  .30  Miss.  396,  1195 
Kidwell  V.   Baltimore,  etc.,  Co., 

n  Gratt.  676,  408 

Kiefer  v.  Carrier.  .53  Wis.  404,  396 
Kiernan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  123  111. 

188,  S.  C.  14N.E.  R.  18,  814 

Kieth  V.  Sturges,  51  111.  142,  395 

Kihlberg  v.  United  States,  97  U. 

S.  398,  407 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Kilbourn  v.  Sunderland,  130  U. 

S.  505,  268,  478 

Kilbourn  v.  Woodworth,  5  Johns. 

37,  272 

Kilbourne  v.  Thompson,  103  U.S. 

168,  118 

Kilburn  v.  Bennett,  3  Metcf.199,  312 
Kilburn  v.  Deming,  21  Am.  Dec. 

543,  17 

Kilburn  v.  Mullen,  22  la.  498, 

803,  804 
Kile  v.  Town  of  Yellowhead,  80 

111.  208,  344 

Kille  v.  Reading  Iron  Works,  134 

Pa.  St.  225,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  547, 

1185 
Killian  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

78  Ga.  749,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  621,     511 
Killops  V.  Stephens,  74  Wis.  39, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  790,  1243 

Killough  V.  Alford,  32  Tex.  457,  1192 
Kilmer  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

37  Kan.84,S.  C.14Pae.  R.465,     622 
Kilpatrick,  etc..  Co.  v.  Callender, 

(Neb.)  52  N.  W.  R.  403,  467 

Kilpatrick  v.  Strozier,  67  Ga.247,  1179 
Kilrov  v.  Mitchell,  2  Wash.  407, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  865,  1186 

Kimball  v.  Brown,  7  Wend.  322,  362 
Kimball  v.  Cushman,    103  Mass. 

194,  535 

Kimball  v.  Davis,  19  Wend.    (N. 

Y.)  4.37,  509 

Kimball  v.  Gilman,  60  N.  H.  54,  586 
Kimball  v.  Ives,  17  Vt.  430,  363 

Kimball  v.  Kimball,  16  Mich.  211,  360 
Kimball  v.  Parmerlee,  29  Minn. 

302,  1162 

Kimball   v.  Thompson,   4  Cush. 

441,  179 

Kimber  v.  Schuylkill  County,  20 

Pa.  St.  366,  258 

Kimbereley  v.  Dick,  L.  R.  13  Eq. 

1  407 

Kiiiiberly  v.  Arms,  129  U.  S. 512,  1128 
Kimberly  v.  Arms,  40  Fed.  R.  548, 

253, 492 
Kimble  v.  Adair,  2  Blackf.  320,  675 
Kimev.Polen  (Pa.),  8  Atl.  R.  783, 

533 
Kimn  v.  Osgood,  19  Mo.  60,  379 

Kincaid  v.  Howe,  10  Mass.  203,  31 
Kincaid  v.  Neall,  3  McCord  201,  158 
Kincaid  v.  School  District,  11  Me. 

188,  399 

Kincannon    v.   Carroll,  9    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  11,  539 

King  V.  Adderley,  Doug.  463,  379 

King  V.   Baldwin,  2  Johns.  Ch. 
527,  132 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


clvii 


[Itefercnces  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
King  V.  Beeston,  3  T.  R.  o!)2,  592 

King  V.  Burnliani,  129  Mass.  598,  190 
King  County  v.  Ferry,  5  Wash. 

536,  1194 

King  V.  Connolly,  44  Cal.  280,  411 
King  V.  D'Eon,  1  W.  Black.  510, 

S.  C.  3  Burr.  1513,  616 

King  V.  Donaluie,  110  Mass.  155,  30 
King  V.  Faber,  51  Pa.  St.  387,  1110 
King  V.  Finch,  60  Ind.  420,  399 

Kintr  v.  Green,  2  Stew.  133,  S.  C. 

19  Am.  Dec.  46,  155 
Kins  V.  Howard,  27  Mo.  21,  587 
King  V.  Hunter,  65  N.  C.  603,  S. 

C.  6  Am.  K.  754,  118 

Kine  v.  Inlial)itants,  4T.  R.  596,  164 
King  V.  Jemison,  33  Ahv.  499,  600 

King  V.  King,  1  Rawle  P.  &  AV. 

(Pa.)  15,  145 

King  V.  Moore,  6  Ala.  160,  197 

King  V.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  72 

N.  Y.  607,  811 

King  V.  Nichols,  etc., Co., 53  Minn. 

453,  S.  C.  55  N.  W.  R.  604,  1211 

King  V.  People,  28  Ala.  601,  565 

King  V.  Poole,  36  Barb.  242,  249 

King  V.  Rea,  13  Col.  69,  112 

Kingv.  Rocdale  Land  Co.,  6  Eng. 

L.^&Eq.  241,  337 

King  V.  Ruckman,  20  N.  J.   Eq. 

316,  805 

King  V.  Sapp,  66  Tex.  519,  S.  C.  2 

S.  W.  R.  573,  242 

King  V.  Savory,  8  Cash.  (Mass.) 

312,  597 

King  V.  State,  90  Ala.  612,  S.  C.  8 

So. R.  856,  558 

King  V.  State,  91  Tenn.  617,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  169,  630 
King  V.  State,  15  Ind.  64,  508 
King  V.  State,  3  L.  R.  A.  210,  644 
King  V.  Vance,  46  Ind.  246,  280, 463 
King  V.  Wade,  1  B.  &  Ad.  861,  1238 
King,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  St.  Louis, 

43  Fed.  R.  768,  S.  G.  10  L.  R.  A. 

826,  575,  594 

King  of  Spain  v.  Oliver,  2  Wash. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  429,  204 

Kingman  v.  Paulson,  126  Ind.  507,  321 
Kingman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Quinn,  45 

Kan.  477,  1134 

Kingsbury  v.  Buchanan,  11  la.  387, 

517,  520 
Kingsbury  v.  Bnckner,  134  U.  S. 

650,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  638,  459 
Kingsfordv.  Hood,  105  Mass.  495,  1052 
Kingsland   v.  Worsham,  15   Mo. 

657.  464 

Kingsley  v.  Bill,  9  Mass.  198,  596 

Kingsley  v.  Wallis,  14  Me.  57,         556 


.  l-(j'02,  Vol.  JI,pp.  G0:i-1244.'] 
Kingston  v.  Kincaid,  1  Wash.  (U. 

S.)  448,  591 

Kingston  v.  Towle,  48  N.  11.  57,  424 
Kinkade  v.  Myers,  17  Ore.  470,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  557,  013 

Kinnanian  v.  Kinnaman,  71  Ind. 

417,  318 

Kinney  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Assn., 

35  W.  Va.  385,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A. 

142,  587,  588,  589 

Kinney  v.  Crocker,  IS  Wis.  74.  493 
Kinney  v.  Dodge,  101  Ind.  573,  677 
Kinney  v.  Emery,  37  N..J  .Eq.  339,  432 
Kinney  v.Flvnn,  2  Durfee  (R.  I.) 

319,  '  31 

Kinney  v.  Lee,  10  Tex.  155,  377 

Kinney  v.  Miller,  25  Mo.  576,  1211 
Kinniug  v.  Buchanan,   8   C.    B. 

271,  242 

Kinports  v.  Rawson,  29  W.  Va. 

487,  155 

Kinsman  v.  State,  77  Ind.  132,  797 
Kipp,  In  re,  63  Mich.  79,  S.  C.  29 

N.  W.  R.  517,  1055 

Kipp  v.  Collins,  33  Minn.  394,  451 
Kipp  V.  Cook,  46  Minn.  535,  S.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  257,  304 

Kipp  V.  Fernhold,  37  Minn.  132, 

S.  C.  33  X.  W.  R.  697,  448 

Kipp  V.  FuUerton,  4  Minn.  473,  456 
Kipp  V.  Wiles,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 

585,  555 

Kirby  v.  Bowland,  69  Ind.  290,  188 
Kirby  v.  Holmes,  6  Ind.  33,  1195 

KirbV  v.  State,  89  Ala.  63,  S.  C.  8 

So."  R.  110,  1080 

Kirby  v.  Studebaker,  15  Ind.  45,  363 
Kirchner  v.  Wood,  48  Mich.  199, 

'^54  1 1 88 
Kirk's  Appeal,  87  Pa.  St.  243,  S. 

C.  30  Am.  R.  357,  207 

Kirk  V.  Bromlv  Union,  2  Phill. 

640,  ■  407 

Kirk  V.  Grant,  67  Md.  418,  1169 

Kirk  V.  :\Iowrv,  24  Ohio  St.  581,  1228 
Kirk  V.  State,  'l4  Ohio  511,  1077 

Kirk  land    v.  Whately,    4    Allen 

462,  312 

Kirkpatrick  v.  Armstrong,  79  Ind. 

384.  675,  676 

Kirkpatrick  v.  Holman,  25  Ind. 

293,  620 

Kirkpatrick  v.  Reeves,  121    Ind. 

280.  21,  1096,  lias 

Kirki)atrick  v.  State,  5  Kan.  673,  213 
Kirksev  v.  Fike.  27  Ala.  383,  S.  C. 

02  A  in.  Dec.  76S.  598 

Kirkwood  v.  Roodv,  10  Kan.  453,  435 
Kirland  v.  State,  43  Ind.  146,  S. 

C.  13  Am.  R.  386,  1076 


clviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Kirschbaum  v.  Scott,  35  Neb.  199, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  1112,  605 

Kirschbon  v.  Bonsel,67  Wis.  178, 

S.  C.  29  N.  W.  R.  907,  707 

Kirten  v.  Spears,  44  Ark.  166,         593 
Kirtland  v.  Moore,  40  N.  J.  Eq. 

106,  407 

Kirtley  v.  Deck,  3  H.  &  M.  (Va.) 

388,  1156 

Kisler  v.  Sanders,  40  Ind.  78,  383 

Kistler  v.  Hereth,  75  Ind.  177,        380 
Kistler  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co., 

88  Ind.  460,  408,  588 

Kitch  V.  Oatis,  79  Ind.  96,  1182 

Kitclien  v.  Loudenback,  48  Ohio 

St.   177,  S.   C.  29  Am.   St.   R. 

540,  1231 

Kitchen  v.  Reinsky,  42  Mo.  427,     435 
Kitchen  v.  Williamson,  4  Wash. 

C.  C.  84,  333 

Kitsmiller  v.  Kitchen,  24  la.  163, 

429,  432 
Kittredge  v.  Folsom,  8  N.  H.  98,  335 
Kitts  V.  Wilson,  130  Ind.  492,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  401,  551 

Kitts  V.  Willson,  106  Ind.  147,       1129 
Kitts  V.  Willson,  89  Ind.  95,  1048 

Klackhoff  v.  Zoehrlaut,  43   Wis. 

373,  1089 

Klaine  v.  Catara,  2  Gall.  61,  575 

Klanowski  v.  Grand  Trunk  Rv. 

Co.,  64  Mich.  279,  S.  C.  31  N. 

W.  R.  275,  812 

Klatt  V.  Milwaukee,  53  Wis.  196,     549 
Kleimann  v.  Geiselmann,  114  Mo. 

437,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  796,  1133 

Kleinecke  v.  Woodward,  42  Tex. 

311,  318 

Kleinschmidt  v.  McAndrews,  117 

U.  S.  282,  718,  1217,  1219,  1227 

Klepferv.  State,  121  Ind.  491,  S. 

C.  23  N.  E.  R.  287,  1226 

Klepsch  V.  Donald,  4  Wash.  St. 

4.36,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  991,  S.  C.  31 

Am.  St.  R.  936,  813,  1071 

Kleyla  v.  Haskett,  112  Ind.  515,  S. 

C.  14  N.  E.  R.  387,  426 

Kleyla  v.  State,  112  Ind.  146,         1229 
Kleiner  v.   Rochester,  etc.,  Co., 

(Pa.  St.),  19  Atl.  R.  934,  1234 

Kline  v.  Baker,  99  Mass.  253,  374 

Kline  v.  Khne,  57  la.  386,   S.  C. 

10  N.  W.  R.  825,  289,  292 

Kline  v.  Vogel,  90  Mo.  239,  376 

Klock  V.  State,  60  Wis.  574,  S.  C. 

19  N.  W.  R.  543,  736,  737 

Klopp  V.  Creston  City,  etc.,  Co. 

(Neb.),  52  N.W.  R.  819,  442 

Klosterman  v.  Olcott,  25  Neb.  382, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  251,  413 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.^ 
Knapp  V.  Crosby,  1  Mass.  479,        293 
Knapp  V.  Marshall,  26  111.  63,         1188 
Knapp  V.  Roche,  82  N.  Y.  366, 

183,  1203 
Knarr  v.  Conaway,  42  Ind.  260, 

175,  641 
Knathla  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

21  Ore.  136,  S.  C.  27  Pac.   R. 

91,  1087 

Knaus  v.  Jenkins,  40  N.  J.  L.  288, 

S.  C.  29  Am.  R.  237,  586 

Kneeland  v.  State,  62  Ga.  395,  781 
Knickerbocker  Ins.   Co.   v.  Tol- 

man,  80  111.  106,  630 

Knickerbocker  Life  Ins.  Co.   v. 

Pendleton,  112  U.  S.  696,  393 

Knickerbocker,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Smith, 

147  Pa.  St.  248,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R. 

563,  574 

Kniel  v.  Egleston,  22  Cent.  L.  J. 

133,  71 

Knight  V.  Bamberger,  19  Ind.  91,  161 
Knight  V.  Burton,  6  Mod.  231,  572 
Knight  V.    Campbell,    62    Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  16,  643 

Knight  V.  Clements,  45  Ala.  89,  384 
Knight  V.  Clyde,  12  R.  I.  119,  471 

Knight  V.  Fisher,  15  Col.   176,    S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  78,  1119,  1155 

Knight  V.  Freeport,  13  Mass.  218, 

1124,  1159 
Knight  V.  Holden,  104  N.  Car.  107, 

S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  90,  594 

Knight  V.  Knight,   6  Ind.    App. 

268,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  421, 

361,  1092,  1093 
Knight  V.  Low,  15  Ind.  374,  603 

Knight  V.  New  England,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Cush.  (Mass.)  271,  542 

Knight  V.  State,  70  Ind.  375,  152 

Knight  V.  Yallentine,   35  Minn. 

367,  1157 

Knobloch  v.  Mueller,  123111.  554, 

S.  C.  17  N.  E.  R.  696,  612 

Knoche  v.  Railroad  Co.,  34  Fed. 

R.  471,  584 

Knode  v.  Baldridge,  73  Ind.  54,  379 
Knoth  V.  Barclay,  8  Col.  305,  S. 

C.  7  Pac.  R.  289,  112 

Knott  V.  Dubuque,  etc.,  Co.,  84  la. 

462,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  57,  313 

Knowis  V.  Baker,  2  Carolina  Law 

Repository,  98,  632 

Knowles  v.  Gaslight,  etc.,  Co.,  19 

Wall.  58,  328,  455 

Knowles  v.  People,  15  Mich.408,  1074 
Knowles  v.  State,  27  Tex.App.503, 

S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  522,  111 

Knowles  v.  Summev,  52  Miss.377,  450 
Knowlton  v.  Homer,  30  Me.  552,     596 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clix 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  1,  pp 
Knox   County    v.   Aspinwall,   21 

How.  (IJ.  S.)  539,  315,324 

Knox  County  v.  Ninth  Nat.  Bank, 

13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  2()7,  157,  324 

Knox  V.  Beirne,  4  Ark.  4(10,  255 

Knox  V.  Gregorious,  43  Kan.  26, 

S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  981,  1114 

Knox    V.   Lee,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

457,  400 

Knox  V.  Noble,  25  Kan.  449,  1232 

Knox   V.   Protection    Ins.    Co.,  9 

Conn.  430,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  33,     471 
Knox  V.  Summers,  3  Crancli  (U. 

S.)  496,  557 

Koch  V.  Losch,  31  Neb.  625,  S.  C. 

48N.  W.  R.  471,  344 

Koehler  v.  Buhl,  94  Mich.  496,  S. 

C.  54  N.  W.  R.  157,  800 

Koehler  v.  Hill,  60  la.  543,  165,  324 
Koerner  v.  State,  98  Ind.  7,  1068 

Koger  V.  Franklin,  79  Ala.  505, 

217,  218 
Kohn  V.  Lucas,  17  Mo.  App.  29,  1233 
Koon  V.  Insurance  Co.,  104  U.  S. 

106,  1122 

Koon  v.Phoenix  Mut.  Life  Ins. Co., 

104  U.  S.  106,  1116 

Koons  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

102  Pa.  St.  164,  548 

Koons  v.Williamson,90Ind.599,  1180 
Kopelke  v.  Kopelke,  112  Ind. 435, 

1088,  1143,  1219 
Korrady  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co., 

131  Ind.  261,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 

1069,  1095,  1107 

Kortjohn  v.  Seimers,  29  Mo.  App. 

271,  410 

Kortright  v.  Cady,  21  N.  Y.  343, 

S.  C.  78  Am.  Dec.  145,  403 

Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  U.  S. 

668,  366 

Kostendader  v.  Pierce,  .37  Ia.645,  1199 
Kottwitz  V.  Baglev,  16  Tex.  656,  909 
Kraft  V.  Thomas,  123  Ind.  513, 

360,  392 
Krahmer  v.  Heilman,  9  N.  Y.  S. 

633,  636 

Kramer  v.  Rebman,  9  la.  114,  1185 
Kramer  v.  Winslow,  154  Pa.  St. 

637,  S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  766,  1081 

Kraus  v.  Haas  (Tex.),  25  S.W.R. 

1025,  1076 

Kraus  v.  Thompson,  30  Minn.  64,  528 
Krausev.  Dorrance,  10  Pa.  St.  462, 

S.  C.  51  Am.  Dec.  496.  362 

Krauskoff  v.  Krauskoff,  82  la.  536, 

S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  932.  1095 

Krebs  v.  Olmstead,  137  ]\rass.  504,  382 
Kreiss.  In  re  (Cal.),  S.  C.  28  Pac. 

R.  808,  576 


.  1-<;U'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
Kreiss  v.  Hotaling,  96  Cal.  617,  S. 

C.  31  Pac.  R.  740,  f>02 

Kreite  v.  Kreite,  93  Ind.  583,  1200 
Kreiter  v.  Bomberger,  82  Pa.  St. 

59,  802 

Kreitlinev  Franz,  106  Ind.  359,  1179 
KrenuTv.  Ilaynie, 67Tex. 450,  292 
Kreuzigcr  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  73  Wis.  15S,  534 

Krider  v.  .Miiner,  99  Mo.  145,  1149 
Krogg  V.  R.  R.  Co.,  77  (ia.  202  S. 

C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  79,  373 

Kronski  v.  Mo.  Pac,  R.  R.  Co.,  77 

Mo.  362,  ■  430 

Krucger  v.  Beckham,  35  Kan.  400, 

S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  158.  146 

Krueger  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  51  Mich.  142,  369 

Krueger  V.  Krucfrer,  7()  Tex.  178,  382 
Krug  V.  Davis,  85  Ind.  309,  434 

Krug  V.   Davis,   101   Ind.   75, 

500, 1148 
Krase  V.  Wilson,  79  111.  2.33,  338 

Krutz   V.  Craig,  53  Ind.  561, 

394,  1136 
Krutz  V.  Griffith,  68  Ind.  444, 

174,  230,  633 
Krutz  V.  Howard,  70  Ind.  174, 

173,  629,  633,  635,  641,  1158 
Kuhlman   v.   Medlinka,   29  Tex. 

385,  1103 

Kuhn  V.  Graves,  9  la.  303,  468 

Kuhns  V.  Gates,  92  Ind.  66,  1096 

Kuhuke    v.     Wright,     22     Kan. 

464,  1198 

KuUbergv.  O'Donnell,  158  ^lass. 

405,  S.  C.  35  Am.  St.   R.   507, 

1077,1110 
Kummel  v.  Germania  Sav.  Bank, 

127"  N.  Y.  488,  S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A. 

786,  546 

Kundinger  v.  Saginaw,  59  Mich. 

355,  S.  C.  26  N.   W.    R.   634, 

253,  653 
Kungle  V.  Fasnacht,  29  Kan.  559,  324 
Kunkel  v.  Chicago,  37  111.  App.  325, 

549 
Kuns  V.  Young,  34  Pa.  St.  60,  539 

Kuntz  v.  Sumption,  117  Ind.  1,424, 

425 
Kuuz  v.  Citv  of  Troy,  104  N.  Y. 

344,  ■  549 

Kurts  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  48  Minn. 

339,  51  N.W.R.221,  294 

Kvle  v.  Board  of  Commissioners, 

94  Ind.  115.  392,  484 

Kvle  V.  Frost,  29  Ind.  382,  269 

Kyle  V.  Kyle,  55  Ind.  387,  436 

Kynaston  v.  Mavor,  2  Stra.  1051, 

1155 


clx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


^References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 


Labar  v.  Koplin,  4  N.  Y.  647,  1112 
Labaree  v.  AVood,  54  Vt.  452,  519 

Lal)att  V.  Smith,  83  Kv.  599,  373 

La  Beau  v.  People,  34  N.  Y.  223,  799 
Labold   V.    Wilson,  4    Ohio   Cir. 

345,  1239 

Labouisse  v.  Orleans,  etc.,  Co., 43 
La.  Ann.  245,  582,  S.  C.  9  So. 
Rep.  492,  619 

Lacassagne  v.  Chapuis,  144  U.  S. 

119,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  659,        329 
Laekev  v.  Pearson,    101   N.  Car. 

651, 'S.  C.  8  S.  E.  R.  121,  111 

Lackev  v.  Seibert,  23  Mo.  85,  468 

Lacy  V.  Wilson,  24  Mich.  479,  404 

Laconipte  v.  Wash,  8  INIo.  551,         1145 
La  Crosse,  etc..  Bank  v.  Wilson, 
74  Wis.  391,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R. 
153,  1129 

Ladd  V.  Couzins,  35  Mo.  513,  492 

Ladd  V.  Harvev,  21  N.  H.  514,  496 
Ladd  V.  Hildebi-ant,  27  Wis.  135,  1169 
Ladd  V.  Patten,  1  Cranch  C.C.  263,  401 
Ladnier  v.  Ladnier,  64  Miss.  368, 

S.  C.  1  So.  R.  492,  1192 

Lafavette  v.  Nagle,  113  Ind.  425,  370 
Lafayette  V.  Neely ,  21  Fed.  R.  738,  528 
La  Favette,  etc..  Bank  v.  Metcalf, 

40  Mo.  App.  494,  394 

La  Favette,  etc.,Co.v.Kleinhoffer, 

40  Mo.  App.  388,  110 

La  Fayette  Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18 

How.  (U.  S.)  404,  430,  440 

Laffey  v.  Chapman,  9  Col.  304,  528 
Lafiin  v.  Harrington,  17  111.  399,  1157 
Laflin  v.  Railroad  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 

859,  588 

La  Follett  v.  Akin,  36  Ind.  1,  493 

La  Follette  v.   Higgins,  129  Ind. 

412,  1109 

Lafond  v.  Deems,  81  N.  Y.  508,  589 
La  Fontaine  v.Southern,etc., Assn., 

83  N.  Car.  132,  781 

La  Frombois  v.  Jackson,  8  Cow. 
N.  Y.  589,  S.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  463, 

370,  1103 
LaGrange  v.  Ward,  11  Ohio  257,  155 
Laidlaw  v.  Morrow,  44  Mich.  547, 

473, 474 
Laidley  v.  Kline,  21  W.  Va.  21,  332 
Laid  ley  v.  Rogers,  22  N,  Y.  Sup. 

468.  509 

Laird  v.  City  of  DeSoto,  32  Fed. 

R.  652,  1177 

Laithe  v.  McDonald,  7  Kan.  254,  1146 
Lake  v.  Bender,  18  Nev.  361,  1166 


.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Lake  v.  Calhoun  Co.,  52  Ala.  1 15,     1056 
Lake  v.  Jones,  49  Ind.  297,     1200,  1201 
Lake  v.  King,  16  Nev.  215,  1182 

Lake  v.  Sweet,  63  Hun  636,  S.  C. 

18  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  342,  162 

Lake  v.  ToUes,  8  Nev.  285,  349 

Lake's  Petition,  15  R.  I.  628,  S. 

C.  10  Atl.  R.  653,  436 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Acres,  108 

Ind.  548,  110 

Lake  Erie  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fish- 
back,  5  Ind.  App.  403,  S.  C.  32 

N.  E.  R.  346,  1097 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co. v.  Fix,  88  Ind. 

381,  1089 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Low- 

der  (Ind.   App.),   34  N.  E.  R. 

447,  609 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mid- 

dleton,  142  111.  550,  S.  C.  32  N. 

E.  R.  453,  536 

Lake  Erie  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Morain,  140  111.  117,  S.  C.  29  N. 

E.  R.  869,  799,  1090 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mugg,  132 

Ind:  168,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  564, 

179,  812 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parker,  94 

Ind.  91,  712,  718, 1171 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Utz, 

133  Ind.  265, 
Lake  Ontario  Nat.   Bank  v.  Jud- 

son,  122N.  Y.  278,  677 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Cham- 
bers, 89  Mich.  5,  S.  C.  50  N.  W. 

R. 741,  1136 

Lake  Shore  &  Mich.  So.  Ry.  Co. 

V.  Cin.,  W.  &  M.  Ry.  Co.,  116 

Ind.  578,  98 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Foster, 

104  Ind.  293,  1025 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hunt, 

39  Mich.  469,  440 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Perkins, 

25  Mich.  329,  70 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pinchin, 

112  Ind.  592,  1107 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richards 

(111.),  32N.  E.  R.  402,  1076 

Lake  Shore,  etc., Co.  v.  Stupak,  123 

Ind.  210,  1103,  1107 

Lake  View  v.  Tate,   130  111.  247, 

S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  268,  545 

Lamar  v.  Gunter,  39  Ala.  324,  241 

Lamar    v.    Nicholson,    7    Porter 

(Ala.)  158,  576 

Lamar  v.  State,  65  Miss.  93,  820 

Lamb  v.  Bush,  49  Mo.  App.  337,    1136 

Lamb  v.  Camden,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

454,  554 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


clxi 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Lamb  v.  Clark,  5  Pick.   (Mass.) 

193,  375 

Lamb  v.  Irwin,  G9  Pa.  St.  436,  531 
Lamb  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  456, 

519,  1129 
Lamb  v.  Lathrop,  13  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  95,  S.  C.  27  Am.  Dec.  174,      402 
Lamb  v.  McConkev,  76  la.  47,  S. 

C.  40  N.  W.  R.  77,  1179 

Lamb  v.  Neisdn,  34  Mo.  501,  1200 

Lamb  v.  Scbottler,  54  Cal.  319,  338 
Lambert  v.    McFarland,    7   Nev. 

159,  1088 

Lambert  v.  Sample,  25  Ohio  St. 

336,  438 

Lambert  v.  Smith,  1  Cranch  C.  C. 

347,  620 

Lamkin  v.  Douglass,  27  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  517,  465 

Lamon  v.  McKee,  7  Mackey  447,  254 
Lampe  v.  Kennedy,  (JO  Wis.  110,  1071 
Lampe  v.  Manning,  38  Wis.  673,  143 
Lampliier  v.  State,  70  Ind.  317,  1158 
Lamphire  v.  Cowan,  39  Vt.  420, 

594,  595 
Lamphrey  v.  Munch, 21  Minn.  379, 

783 
Lampkin  v.  State,  87  Ga.  516,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  523,  665,666,  668 

Lamson  v.  Falls,  6  Ind.  309,  12.38 

Lampson  v.  Piatt,  1  la.  556,  242 

Lanagin  v.  Nowland,  44  Ark.  84,  1105 
Lancashire  v.  Lancashire,  9  Beav. 

120,  1210 

Lancaster  V.  Collins,  115  U.  S.  222, 

669, 1141 
Lancaster  v.  State,  91  Tenn.  267, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  777,  308 

Lancaster  v.  AYaukegan,  etc.,  Co., 

132  111.  492,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  629, 

171 
Lancaster  Bank  v.  Woodward,  18 

Pa.  St.  357,  554 

Lancaster  County  v.  Brenthall,29 

Pa.  St.  38,        "  366 

Lance  v.  Donnell,  105  Pa.  St.  46, 

1163 
Lance  v.  McCoy,  34  W.  Va.  416,  S. 

C.  12  S.  E.  R.  728,  289 

Landa  v.  Obert,  78  Tex.  33,  721 

Landa  v.  State,  2(5  Tex.  App.  580, 

S.  C.  10  S.  W.  R.  218,  307 

Landers  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  14 

Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  346,  337 

Landers   v.    Staten    Island,   etc., 

Co.,  53  N.  Y.  450,  118 

Landes  v.  Globe,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ga. 

176,  486 

Landford  v.  Dunklin,  71  Ala.  594, 

K  324 


.  l-a02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Lamlis  v.  Roth,  109  Pa.  St.  621,  S. 

C.  58  Am.  R.  747,  382 

Landis  v.  Saxton,  105  Mo.  486,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  403,  372 

Landon  v.  Comet,  (i2  Mich. 80,  S. 

C.  28  N.  W.  R.  788,        235,  322,  610 
Landon  v.  Townshend,  129  N.  Y. 

166,  S.  C.29  N.  E.  R.  71,  371 

Landsd(jwn,  Ex  parte,  5  East.  38,  393 
Lanev.Boiumelmann,21  111.  143,  1191 
Lane  v.  Borst,  5  Robt.  (N.  Y.)  609, 

1146 
Lane  v.  Cameron,  38  AYis.  603,  3(Jo 
Lane  v.  Crosby,  42  Me.  327,  341 

Lane  v.  Ellinger,  32  Tex.  369,  185 

Lane  v.  Innes,  43  Minn.  137,  S.  C. 

45  N.  W.  R.  4,  446,  448,  452 

Lane  v.  Nelson,  79  Pa.  St.  407,  117 
Lane  v.  Scoville,  Ki  Kan.  402,  6(55 
Lane  v.  State,  29  Tex.  App.  310, 

S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  827,  646 

Laney  v.  Garbee,  105  Mo.  355,  S. 

C.  16  S.  W.  R.  831,         438,  452,  456 
Lanfear  v.  INIavor,  4  La.  97,  S.  C. 

23  Am.  Dec. '477,  136,  224 

Lanfear  v.  Sumner,  17  Mass.  110,  556 
Lang  V.    Salliotte,   7    L.    R.    A. 

720,  584 

Lang  V.  State,  16  Lea  433,  S.  C.  1 

S.  W.  R.  318,  1058 

Lange,  Ex  parte,  18  Wall.  163, 

118,  243,  2.55,  280,  340 
Lange  v.  Benedict,  73  N.  Y.  12, 

165,  260 
Lange  v.  Dammier,  119  Ind.  567, 

S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  749,  388 

Langdon  v.  Bullock,  8  Ind.  341,  1197 
Langdon  v.  Doud,  6  Allen  423,  S. 

C.  83  Am.  Dec.  641,  312,381 

Langdon  v.  Goole,  3  Lev.  21,  538 

Langdon  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  53  Vt.  228,  497 

Langenberg  v.  Decker,  131  Ind. 

471,  S.  C.  16  L.  R.  A.  108,  31  N. 

E.  R. 190,  170 

Langford  v.  Ottumwa,  etc.,  Co., 

53  la.  415,  1197 

Langford  v.  People,  134  111.  444,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  1009,  637 

Langhome  v.  Com..  76  Va.  1012,  804 
Langley  v.  Warner,  3  N.  Y.  327, 

526,  1103 
Langsdalev. Woollen,  99  Ind.  575, 

360,  362 
Langworthv  v. Green  Tp.,95  Mich. 

93,  S.  C.  o4  N.  W.  R.  ()97.  810 

Lanier  v.  Alison,  31  Fed.  R.  100,  485 
Lanneau  v.  Ervin,   12   Rich.   (S. 

Car.)  31,  604 

Lants  V.  :Maffatt,  102  Ind.  23,  321 


clxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Lapeer  Ins.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  30  Mich. 

15i»,  536 

LaPlante  v.  Lee,  83  Ind.  155,  164 

LaPointe  Supervisors  v.  O'Mallev, 

47  Wis.  332,  202 

LaPorte  v.  Organ,  5  Ind.  App.  369, 

8.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  2,  1219 

Lapreese  v.  Falls,  7  Ind.  692,  1128 
Lapsley  v.  Weaver,  44  Ala.  131,  1168 
Larsie  v.  Orvis,  20  Wis.  696,  545 

Lartllian  v.  Lane,  8  Ark,  372,  643 

Larimore  v.  Hornbaker,  21  Ind. 

430,  401 

Larkins  v.  Bullard,  88  N.  Car.  35,  443 
Larinan  v.  Huev,  13  B.  Mon.  436, 

179,  1043 
Larmore  v.  Iron  Co.,  101  N.  Y.  391,  369 
Larned  v.  City  of  Dubuque  (la.), 

53  N.  W.  R.  105,  567 

La  Rose  v.  Logansport,  etc..  Bank, 

102  Ind.  332,  1237 

Larquie  v.  Wife,  40  La.  Ann.  450,  312 
Larsen  v.  Breene,  12  Col.  480,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  498,  404 

Larsen  v.  Johnson,  78  Wis.  300, 

S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  404,  519 

Larue  v.  Russell,  26  Ind.  386,  179,  695 
Lasak's  Will,  In  re,  131  N.  Y.  624, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  112,  720 

Laselle  v.AVells,  17  Ind.  33,  633,  1063 
Lasere    v.   Rochereau,  17    Wall. 

437,  280,  336,  339 

Lash  V.  Warren  (Tex.),  14  S.  W. 

R.  694,  1198 

Lash  V. Von  Neida,  109  Pa.  St.  207, 

385 
Lasseter  v.  Simpson,  78  Ga.  61,  S. 

C.  3  S.  E.  R.  243,  1215 

Lassiter  v.  State,  67  Ga.  739,  696 

Latham  v.  Chafee,  7  Fed.  R.  525, 

194,  195,  496 
Latham  v.  Hartford,  27  Kan.  249, 

399,  400 
Lathrop  v.  Bank.  8  Dana  114,  275 

Lathrop  v.  Doty,  82  la.  272,  S.  C. 

47  N.  W.  R.  1089,  344 

Lathrop  v.  Page,  129  Mass.  19,  566 
Lathrop  v.  Schnellbaker,  6  Ohio 

St.  276,  369 

Latta  V.  Griffith,  57  Ind.  329,  191 

Lauer  v.  Bandow,  48  Wis.  638,  1195 
Laughlin  v.  Peckham,  66  la.  121,  155 
Laughlin  v.  Santa  Fe  Co.,  3  N.  M. 

264,  S.  C.  5  Pac.  R.  817,  483 

Laughlin  v.  State,  18  Ohio  99,  S. 

C.  51  Am.  Dec.  444,  179 

Laughlin    v.   Street  Ry.   Co.,  80 

Mich.  154,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R. 

1049,  822 

Lauman  v.Young,  31  Pa.  St.  306,      584 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Laumeier  v.  Gehner,  110  Mo.  122, 

S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  82,  1133 

Launtz  v.  Heller.  41  111.  App.  528, 

1228 
Lavender  v.  Lavender,  Ir.  Rep.  9 

Eq.  593,  497 

Laverty  v.  State,  109  Ind.  217,  1215 
Laverty  v.  Woodward,  16  la.  1,  111 
Lavey  v.  Doig,  25  Fla.  1,  S.  C.  6 

So.  R.  259,  1129 

Lavin  v.  People,  68  111.  303,  663 

Law  V.  Duncan,  2  Brev.  (S.  Car.) 

263,  1197 

Law  V.  Henry,  39  Ind.  414,  394 

Law  V.  Jackson,  8  Cow.  746,  1239 

Law  V.  Law,  83  Ala.  432,  S.  C.  3 

So.  R.  752,  543 

Law  V.  Nelson,  14  Col.  409,  S.  C. 

24  Pac.  R.  2,  614 

Lawhorn  v.  Carter,  11  Bush.  (Ky.) 

7,  102 

Lawler  v.  White,  27  Tex.  250,  319 
Lawlins  V.  Lackey,  6  Monr.  (Ky.) 

70,  452 

Lawlor  v.  Linforth,  72  Cal.  205,  658 
Lawrence  v.  Clark,    14   Mees.   & 

W.  250,  606 

Lawrence  v.  Commonwealth,  86 

Va.  573,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  840,      718 
Lawrence  v.  Evarts,   7  Ohio   St. 

194,  33 

Lawrence  v.  Farlev,  73  N.Y.  187,  162 
Lawrence  V.  Fast, "20  111.  338,  S. 

C.  71  Am.  Dec.  274,  1191 

Lawrence  v.   Grambling,   13  So. 

Car.  120,  112 

Lawrence  v.  Greenwich,  etc.,  Co., 

1  Paige  (N.  Y.)  587,  495 

Lawrence  v.  Jones,  15  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  110,  453 

Lawrence  v.  Miller,  86  N.  Y.  131,  405 
Lawrence  v.  Rokes,  61  Me.  38,  377 
Lawrence  v.  State,  30  Ark.  719,  444 
Lawrence  V.  Stearns, 11  Pick. 501,  1118 
Lawrence  v.  Traner,  136   111.  474, 

S.  C.  27N.  E.  R.  197,  483 

Lawrence  v.  W^ilcock,    11  Ad.   & 

El.  941,  239,  262,  609 

Lawrence  v.  Wright,  2  Duer   (N. 

Y.)  673,  22 

Lawson  v.  Buckley,  49  Hun  329,  413 
Lawson  v.  Glass,  6  Col.  134,  180 

Lawson   v.    Hilgenberg,    77  Ind. 

221,  1132,  1143 

Lawson  v.  Jeffries,  47  Miss.  686, 

S.  C.  12  Am.  R.  342,  117 

Lawson  v.  Moore,  44  Ala.  274, 

1181,  1182 
Lawson  v.  Moorman,  85  Va.  880, 

293,  445 


TA15LE    OF    CASES. 


clxiii 


[References  are  to  Paf/es,  Vol.  I,  §§  1-002,  ]'ol.  II,  §<;  ao:i-1244.} 


Lawson  v.  State,  32  Ark.  220,  803 

Lavvton  v.  Lawton,  3  Atk.  Ki,  965 

Lawtoii   V.  Maner,  9  Rich.    (So. 

Car.)  335,  413 

Lawyer  v.  Smith,  8  Mich.  411,  543 
Lawyers' Ta.x Cases,  S  Ileisk.  (JoO,  116 
Layman  v.  Graybiil,  14  Ind.  166, 

184,  1124 
Lavne  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  35  \V. 

Va.  438,  S.  C.  14  S.  K.  R.  123,       612 
Layton  v.  Riney,  33  Mo.  87,  1047 

Lazzarone   v.   Oishei,    21    N.   Y. 

Supp.  267,  611 

Lea  V.  Henry,  56  la.  662,  559 

Lea  V.  State,  64  Miss.  294,  S.  C.  1 

So.  R.  244,  624 

Lea  V.  Yates,  40  Ga.  56,  1191,  1193 
Leach  v.  Blakely,  34  Vt.  134,  1205 
Leach  v.  Church,  10  Ohio  St.  148, 

1103,  1146 
Leach  v.  Leach,  58  N.  Y.  630,  374 

Leach  v.  People,  122  111.  420,  216 

Leach  V.  Pillsbury,  18  N.  H.  525,  154 
Leach  v.  Republic  Ins.  Co.,  58  N. 

II.  245,  588 

Leach  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

65  N.  Car.  486,  627 

Leach  v.  Wilbur,  9  Allen  212,  1123 
Leache  v.  State,  22 Tex.  App.  279, 

696 
Leak  v.  Covington,  95  N.  Car.  193, 

1184 
Leake  v.  Galloglv,  34  Neb.  857,  S. 

C.  52N.  W.  R.'824,  604,611 

Learned  V.  Hall,  133  Mass.  417,  823 
Learned  v.  Vandenburgh,  8  How. 

Pr.  (X.  Y.)  77,  468 

Learv  v.  Ebert,  57  Ind.  415,  629 

Leary  v.  Leary,  68  Wis.  662,  1162 

Leasure  v.  Coburn,  57  Ind.  274,  540 
Leather,  etc..  Bank  v.  Merchants' 

Bank,  128  U.  S.  26,  S.  C.  9  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  3,  364 

Leatherman  v.  Times  Co.,  88  Ky. 

291,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  342,         378 
Leathers  v.   Morris,  101  N.  Car. 

184,  431 

Leathers  v.  Salvor  Wrecking  Co., 

2  Woods  (C.  C.)  680,  8 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilkins, 

45  Kan.  674,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  16, 

1095 
Leavitt  v.  Baker,  82  Me.  26,  S.  C. 

19  Atl.  R.  86,  514 

Leavitt  v.  Leavitt,  158  Mass.  355, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  527,  1057 

Leavitt  v.  Windsor  Land,  etc., Co., 

54  Fed.  R.  439,  591 

Lebanon  Bank  v.  Karmanv,  98Pa. 

St.  42,  '  1209 


Lebold  V.  Ottawa  Bank,  51  Kan, 

381,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  1 103,  1136 

Leclair  v.  Patterson,  4  Blackf.  273, 

521 
Le  Coulteux  De  Cauniont  v.  Mor- 
gan (N.  Y.),9  N.  K.  R.  861,  S. 

C.  Matter  of  Morgan,  104  N.  Y. 

74,  720 

Lee  V.  Basey,  85  Ind.  543,  1194 

Lee  V.  Board,  3  Wyo.  52,  S.  C.  31 

Pac.  R.  1045,  1224 

Lee  V.  Buckhcit,  46  Wis.  246,  636 

Lee  V.  Burnhaiii,  82  Wis.  209,  S. 

C.  52N.  W.  R.  255,  544 

Lee  V.  Carrollton,  etc.,  Assn.,  58 

Md.  301,  1189 

Lee  V.  Clute,  10  Nev.  149,  1120 

Lee  V.  Dolan,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  193,        597 
Lee  V.  Grimes,  4  Col.  185,  582 

Lee  V.  Hassett,  39  Mo.  App.  67,      557 
Lee  V.  Macfee,  45  Minn.  33,  438 

Lee  V.  Parry,  4  Denio  (N.  Y.)  125,    592 
Lee  V.  Quirk,  20  111.  392,  1077 

Lee  V.  State,  56  Ark.  4,  S.  C.  19  S. 

W.  R.  16,  146 

Lee  V.  State,  26  Ark.  260,  1124 

Lee  V.  State,  88  Ind.  256,  200 

Lee  V.  Slowe,  57  Tex.  444,  509 

Lee  V.  Tillotson,  24  Wend.  337,  S. 

C.  35  Am.  Dec.  624,  333,  644 

Lee  V.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,  18  W. 

Va.  299,  1024 

Lee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Englebach,18  Col. 

106,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  771,  1162 

Leech  v.  State,  78  Ind.  570,      257,  486 
Lee  Chuck  v.  Quan  Wo  Chong,  91 

Cal.  593,  S.  C.  28  Pao.  R.  45,       1151 
Leeds  v.  Burrows,  12  East  1,  573 

Leeds  v.  Cook,  4  Esp.  256,  506 

Leeds  v.  Sayward,  6  N.  H.  83,         199 
Leeper  v.  Taylor,  111  Mo.  312,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  955,  349 

Leese  v.  Sherwood,  21  Cal.  151,     1180 
Leet  V.  AVilson,  24  Cal.  398,  712 

Leffel  V.  Obenchain.  90  Ind.  50,     1230 
Lefferts  v.  State,  49  N.  J.  L.  26,  S. 

C.  6  Atl.  R.  521,  1243 

Leffler  v.  Field,  33  How.  Pr.  385, 

1146 
Leflerv.  Field,  50  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

407,  783 

Leforge  v.  West,  2  Ind.  514,  487 

Leftwich  v.    Commonwealth,   20 

Gratt.  716,  1216 

Leftwich  v.    Dav.  32  Minn.  512, 

1106,  1112 
Leftwitch  v.  Lecanu,  4  Wall.  187, 

1235 
Lecal  Tender  Casos.l  10  U.  S.  421.  120 
Lesal  Ttnder  Cases,  15  Wall.4o7,     120 


clxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Iiefere7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Lego  V.  Shaw,  38  Wis.  401,  629 

Le  Guen  v.  Gouverueur,  1  Johns 

Cas.  43G,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  121,  1185 
Lehman  v.  Hildebrand  (Pa.),  10 

Lane.  L.  Rev.  249,  1120 

Lehman  v.  Kellerman,  65  Pa.  St. 

489,  1041 

Lehman  v.  Van  Winkle,  92  Ala. 

443,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  870,  353 

Lehnen  v.  Dickson,  148  U.  S.  71, 

S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  481,  1140,  1141 
Leib  V.  Commonwealth,  9  Watts 

(Pa.)  200,  152 

Leiber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Rv.  Co. ,84 

la.  97,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  547, 

1070,  1078 
Leicester,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Front  Royal, 

etc.,  Co.,  55  Fed.  R.  190,  1205 

Leidlein  v.  Meyer,  95  Mich.  586, 

S.  C.  55  N.  W.  R.  367,  813,  1169 

Leigh  V.  Alpaueh,  24  N.  J.  L.  629,     432 
Leighton  v.  On-,  44  la.  679,  1142 

Leighton  v.  Sargent,  31  N.  H.  119, 

S.  C.  64  Am.  Dec.  323,  1078 

Leimer  v.  Pacific    R.  R.,  26  Mo. 

26,  1049 

Leitch  V.  Beatv,  23  111.  642,  598 

Leitch  V.  Wells,  48  N.  Y.  585,  499 

Leiter  V.  Jackson  (Ind.),  35  N.  E. 

R.  289,  1057 

Leith  V.  Leith,  39  N.  H.  20,  287 

Leitham   v.   Cusick,  1  Utah  Ter. 

242,  488 

Leland  v.  Goodfellow,  84  Mich. 

357,  S.  C.  47  N.W.  R.  591,  528 

Lemar  v.  Williams,  39  Miss.  .342,     1068 
Lemke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

39  Wis.  449,  1098 

Lemon  v.  Temple,  7  Ind.  556,  409 

L'Englev.  Florida  Cent.  R.R.Co., 

14  Fla.  266,  498 

Lennox  v.  Knox,  etc.,  Co.,  62  Me., 

322,  1158,  1165 

Lenoir  v.  Moore,  61  Miss.  400,       1194 
Lent  V.  Tillson,  140  U.  S.  316,  170 

Leo  V.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Fed. 

R.  273,  489 

Leominster  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  .38,  590 

Leonard  v.  Blair,  .59  Ind.  510,  230 

Leonard  v.  Broughton,  120  Ind. 

536,  S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  .347,  190 
Leonard  v.  House,  15  Ga.  473,  573 
I^eonard  v.  Mulry,  93  N.  Y.  392,  590 
Leonard  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co., 

21   Ore.  555,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A. 

221,  811,812 

I^onard  v.  Tyler,  60  Cal.  299,  412 

Leonard  v.  Wading,  etc.,  Co.,  113 

Mass.  2.35,  597 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Leonard  v.Warriner,  20  Wis.  41,    1227 
Lerch   v.    Emmett,   44   Ind.   331, 

237,  1240 
Le  Roy  v.  Clayton,  2  Sawy.  493,  241 
Le  Roy  v.Crowninshield,  2  Mason 

(C.  C.)151,  382 

LeRoy  v.  Piatt,  4  Paige   77, 

239,  261,  1130 
Leroy,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  40 

Kan.598,  S.C.2L.R.A.217,       1064 
Leslie  v.  Fischer,  62  111.  118,  604 

Leslie  v.  Leshe  (N.  J.),  24  Atl.  R. 

319,  594,  596,  601 

LesHe  v.  Leslie  (N.  J.),  24  Atl.  R. 

1029,  575 

Leslie  v.  Merrick,  99  Ind.  180,  1098 
LesHe  v.  Merrill,  58  Ala.  322,  475 

Lessee  of  Boswell  v.   Sharp,   15 

Ohio  St.  447,  299 

Lessee  of  Fowler  v.  Whiteman,  2 

Ohio  St.  270,  327 

Lessee  of  GriflEith  v.Wright,  18  Ga. 

173,  314 

Lessees  of  Grignon  v.Astor,2  How. 

(U.  S.)  319,  315,  325,  427 

Lessee   of  Perry   v.    Braiard,    11 

Ohio  442,  293 

Lessee  of  Sheldon  v.  Newton,  3 

Ohio  St.  494,  293 

Lessner  v.  Banks,  46  Ark.  482,  1235 
Lester  v.  Berkowitz,  125  111.  307, 

S.  C.  17  N.  E.  R.  706,  1184 

Lester  v.  Callaway,  73  Ga.  7.30,  599 
Lester  v.  Garland,  15  Ves.  248,  379 
Lester  v.  State,  2  Tex.  App.  432, 

646,  663 
Lester  V.  Thompson,  91  Mich. 245, 

S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  893,  382 

Lestrade  v.  Barth,  17  Cal.  285,  1208 
Letney  v.  Marshall,  79  Tex,  513, 

S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  586,  266 

Letton  V.  Graves,  26  Mo.  250,  718 

Letton  V.  Young,  2  Mete.  588,  1074 
Lender  v.  People,  6  111.  App.  98,  1058 
Leverett  v. State, 3  Tex.  App.  213,  1120 
Leverich  v.  Frank,  6  Ore.  212,  804 
Levi  V.  Daniels,  22  Ohio  St.  38,  1143 
Levi  V.  Fred  (Neb.),  57  N.  W.  R. 

386,  1078 

Levi  V.  Monroe,  11  la.  453,  1195 

Levin  v.  Russell,  42  N.  Y.  251,  720 
Lewiston  v.  French,  45  N.  H.  21,  512 
I^vy  v.  Brannan,  .39  Cal.  485,  1118 
Levy  v.  Chittenden,  120  Ind.  37, 

185,  1109,  1151,  1208 
Levy  V.  Ferguson,  etc.,  Co.,   51 

Ark.  317,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.R.284,     317 
Levy  V.  Gadsby,  3  Cranch  (U.S.) 

180,  537 

Levy  V.  Karrick,  15  la.  444,  255 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxv 


l^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  ]'ol.  I,  pp 
Levy  V.  Rice,  5  L.  R.  C.  P.  119,      G28 
Lew  V.  State,  28  Tex.  App.  203, 

S.'C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  82(),  799,  802 

Lew  V.  Stewart,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

244,  381 

Lewark  v.  Carter,  117  Ind.  200,  1208 
Lewellin  v.  Mackworth,  2  Atk.40, 

S.  C.  Barn.  445,  373 

Lewin  v.  Dillc,  17  :\Io.  ()4,  101 

Lewin  v.  Sniitli,  4  East  589,  430 

Lewis  V.  Adams,  70  Cal.  403,  S.C. 

11  Pac.  R.  833,  378 

Lewis  V.  Allred,  57  Ala.  628,  293 

Lewis  V.  Blue,  110  N.  Car.  420,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E.  R. 190,  206 

Lewis  V.  Chapman,  16  N.Y.  369,  540 
Lewis  V.  Christie,  99  Ind.  377, 

1070,  1073 
Lewis  V.  Button,  8  How.  Pr.  99, 

314,  324 
Lewis  V.  Ewing,  70  Ind.  282,  1230 

Lewis  V.  Faul,  29  Ark.  470,  474 

Lewis  V.  Godman,  129  Ind.  359,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  563,  182 

Lewis  V.  Grace,  44  Ala.  307,  430 

Lewis  V.  Hoboken,  42  N.  J.  L.  377, 

116 
Lewis  V.  Hodgdon,  17  Me.  267,  915 
Lewis  V.  Lewis,  20  Mo.  App.  546, 

255 
Lewis  V.  Lord  Zouche,  5  Sim.  388, 

497 
Lewis  V.  Marshall,  5  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

469,  380 

Lewis  V.  Masters,  8  Blackf.  244,  393 
Lewis  V.  May,  22  Ta.  599,  182 

Lewis  V.  :\Ierritt,  98  N.  Y.  206,  719 
Lewis  V.  Morrow,  89  Mo.  174,  S. 

C.  1  S.  AV.  R.  93,  245 

Lewis  V.  Morse,  20  Conn.  211,  517 
Lewis  V.  Morton,  5  T.  B.  Mon.  1, 

310 
Lewis  V.  New  York,  etc.,  123  N. 

Y.  496,  1220 

Lewis  V.  Owen,  04  Ind.  440,  190 

Lewis  V.  Railroad  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 

490,  1206 

Lewis  V.  Shainwald,  7  Saw.  403, 

S.  C.  48  Fed.  R.  492,  477 

Lewis  V.  State,  35  Ala.  380,  807 

Lewis  V.  State,  90  Ga.  95,  S.  C.  16 

S.  E.  R.  980,  800 

Lewis  V.  United  States,  146  U.  S. 

370,  1219 

Lewis  V.  "Watnis,  7  Neb.  477,  1192 

Lewis  V.  Webb,  3  :\Ie.  326,  117,  121 
Lewis  V.  Webber,  110  :\hiss.  450,  409 
Lewisburgh  Bank  v.  Sheffev,  140 

U.  S.  445.  '  1187 

Lewiston  v.  Proctor,  23  111.  483,      217 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60.3-1244.} 
Lewiston,  etc.,  Co. v. Franklin  Co., 

54  Me.  402,  487 

Lewless  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

02  Mich.  292,  571 

Le.xington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ford  Plate 

Glass  Co.,  84  Ind.  616,  407 

Lexington   Ins.  Co.  v.  Paver,  10 

Ohio  324,  <)75 

Lex's  Apiieal,  97  Pa.  St.  289,  128 

Leyner  v.  State,  8  Ind.  490,  635,  1220 
Libby  v.  Crossley,  40  Fed.  R.  564, 

1239 
Liberty  v.  Burns,  114  Mo.  426,  S. 

C.  2i  S.  W.  R.  728,  1144 

License   Cases,  5    How.    (U.   S.) 

504,  120,  303 

Liddle  v.  Old  Lowell  Nat.  Bank 

(Mass.),  32  N.  E.  R.  954,  799 

Lieberman  v.  Hoffman,    102   Pa. 

St.  590,  475 

Lienburgerv.  State  (Tex.),  21  S. 

W.  Rep.  603,  820 

LienoAy  v.  Ellis,  6  Mass.  331,  310 

Life  Ins.   Co.    v.    Adams,   9   Pet. 

573,  178.  1241 

Life  and  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mechan- 
ics', etc.,  Co.,  7  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

31,  507 

Lift  V.  Jones,  77  Ga.  181,  1071 

Ligan  v.  State,  3  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

159,  231 

Ligare  y.  California  S.  R.  R.  Co., 

76  Cal.  610,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  Rep. 

777,  433 

Liggett,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Collier  (la.), 

50  N.  W.  R.  917.  1060 

Light    V.   Richardson    (Cal.),   31 

Pac.  R.  1123,  .  618 

Lightner  y.  Steinagel,  33  111.  510,  197 
Lightsey  y.  Harris,  20  Ala.  409,  158 
Likens  y.  ^^IcCormick,  39  Wis.  313, 

445,  452 
Liles  V.  Ratchford,  88  Ala.  397,  S. 

C.  0  So.  R.  914,  527 

Liliard's  Ex'r  y.  Liliard's  Ex'rs, 

5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  340,  454 

Lill  V.  Russell.  22  Wis.  178,  395 

Lillard  y.   Branniu    (Ky.),   16  S. 

W.  R.  349,  ■  437 

Lillie  y.  Trentman,  130  Ind.  16,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  405,  228 

Lilly  y.  Larkin,  00  Ala.  122.  191 

Lilly  y.  N.Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R.R.Co., 

107  N.  Y.  500,  547 

Lilly  V.  Tobbein  (Mo.),  13  S.  W. 

Rep.  1000,  378 

Limerick  v.  Murlatt,  43  Kan.  318,  220 
Lincoln  y.  Batt^lle,  6  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  475,  373 

Lincoln  v.  Cook,  3  111.  61,  598 


clxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Lincoln  v.  Copper  Mfg.  Co.,  9  Al- 
len (Mass.)  181,  811 
Lincoln  v.  Gillilan,  18  Neb.  114,  S. 

C.  24  N.  W.  R.  444,  1056 

Lincoln  v.  Hapgood,  11  Mass.  350, 

1109,  1155 
Lincoln  v.  Norton,  36  Vt.  679,  380 

Lincoln  v.  Whittenton  Mills,  12 

Mete.  (Mass.)  31,  695 

Lincoln  v.  Wright,  4  Beavan  166,  728 
Lincoln  Rapid  Transit  Co.  v.  Run- 
die  (Neb.),  ,52  N.  W.  R.  563,        499 
Linde  v.  Republic,  etc.,  Co.,  18  J. 

&  S.  (N.  Y.)  362,  592 

Linden  Gravel  Mining  Co.  v.Shep- 

lar,  53  Cal.  245,  613 

Linderman  v.  Pomerov,   142  Pa. 

St.  168,  S.  C.  24  Am. 'St.  R.  494,    382 
Lindheim  v.  ^Manhattan  Ry.  Co., 

68  Hun  (N.  Y.)  122,  605 

Lindley  v.  Groff,'  37  Minn.  338,  361 
Lindley  v.  Kelley,  42  Ind.  294, 

1029,  1031,1034 
Lindley  v.  O'Reilly,  50  N.  J.  L. 

636,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  802,  282 

Lindlev  v.  Sullivan,  133  Ind.  588, 

S.  C.'32  N.  E.  R.  7.38,  676,1066 

Lindsav  v.  Jaffray,  55  Tex.  626, 

335,  336 
Lindsav  v.   McClelland,  1   Bibb. 

(Ky.)  262,  239 

Lindsav  v.  Morris  (Ala.),  13  So. 

R.  619,  473 

Lindsav  v.  Wayne  Circuit  Judge, 

63  Mich.  735,  1047 

Lindsay  v.  Williams,  17  Ala.  229,  163 
Line  v.  State,  51  Ind.  172,  629,  1073 
Line  v.  Tavlor,  3  F.  6c  F.  731,  811 

Lines  v.  Benner,  52  Ind.  195,  1180 
Lines  v.  Darden,  6  Fla.  37,  224 

Lingen  v.  Lingen,  45  Ala.  410,  292 
Lingenfelser  v.  Simon,  49  Ind.  82,  511 
Lingo  V.  Binford  (Mo.),  18  S.  W. 

R.  1081,  266 

Lingood  v.  Fade,  2  Atk.  501,  591 

Lininger  v.  Glenn,  33  Neb.  187,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  1128,  154 

Link  V.  Page,  72  Tex.  592,  S.  C.  10 

S.  W.  Rep.  699,  542 

Link  V.  Sheldon,  1.36  N.  Y.  1,  S.  C. 

.32  N.  E.  R.696,  741 

Linkauf  V.  Lombard,  137  N.Y.  417, 

S.  C.  .33  Am.  St.  R.  743,  1053 

Links  V. State, 13  Lea(Tenn.)  701,  1069 
Linn  v.  Kvle,  1  Walker  (Miss.), 

315,         '  128 

Linn  v.Wheeler,21  N.J.  Eq.  231,  1216 
Linsday  v. People,  63  N.Y.  143,  29,  30 
Linsee  v.  State,  5  Blackf.    (Ind.) 

601,  520 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Linville  v.  State,  130  Ind.  210,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1129,  407,  569 

Lipes  V.  Hand,  104  Ind.  503,  1129 

Lippincott   v.  Ledyard,  8   Phila. 

18,  1134 

Lipscomb  v.  Lyons,  19  Neb.  511,  738 
Lipscomb  v.  Tanner,  31  S.  Car.  49, 

S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  733,  310 

Lipscombe  v.  Holmes,  2  Campb. 

441,  399 

Liss  v.  Wilcoxen,  2  Col.  85,  158 

List  V.  Jockheck,  45  Kan.  349,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  184,  1183 

List  v.  Kortepeter,  26  Ind.  27,  677 
Lister  v.  Boker,  6  Blkf.  439,  1160 

Litchfield  Bank  v. Church, 29  Conn. 

137,  146 

Litowich  v.  Litowich,19  Kan.  451,  287 
Little  V.  Bowers,  134  U.  S.  547,  1137 
Little  V.  Chambers,  27  la.  522,  445 
Lithgow  V.  Com.,  2  Va.  Cas.  297,  666 
Little  V.  Dusenberry,  46  N.  J.  L. 

614,  S.  C.  50  Am.  R.  445,  410 

Little  V.  Evans,  41  Kan.  578,  340 

Little  V.  Greenlief,  7  Mass.  236,  258 
Little  V.   Lischkoff  (Ala.),  12  So. 

R.  429,  799 

Little  V.  Newton,  9  Dowl.  P.  C. 

437,  591 

Little  V.  Sinnett,  7  la.  324,  242, 317 
Little  V.  State,  90  Ind.  338,  137 

Little,  etc.,  Co. v.  Little,  etc.,  Co., 
11  Col.  223,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R. 
226,  183,  1192 

Littlefield  v.  Brooks,  50  Me.  475,  312 
Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.   R.   Co.  v. 

Wetmore,  19  Ohio  St.  110,  1066 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barker, 

39  Ark.  491,  236 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Caven- 

esse,  48  Ark.  106,  820,824 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Chap- 
man, .39  Ark.  463,  S.  C.  43  Am. 
R.  280,  369 

Little   Rock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Perry, 

37  Ark.  164,  i054 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tankers- 
Iv,  54  Ark.  25,  S.C.  14  S.  W.  R. 
1099,  719 

Littleton  v.  Clayton,  77  Ala.  571,  506 
Littleton  v.  Fritz,  65  la.  488,  S. 

C.  54  Am.  R.  19,  482 

Littleton  v.  Smith,  119  Ind.  230, 

S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  886,     214,  217,  235 
Littrell  v.  Wilcox,  11  Mont.77,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  394,  224 

Livergood   v.    Rhoados,   20    Ind. 

411,  1048 

Livermore  v.  Brundage,  64  Cal. 
299,  214,  21f 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clx^ 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Livermure  v.   Campbell,  52   Cul. 

75,  4'J2,  1161 

Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Geohring, 

99  Pa.  St.  13,  596 

Livesey  v.  Livesey,  30  Ind.  398,  1215 
Livingston  v.  Coe,  4  Neb.  379,  429 
Livingston  v.  Jefferson,  1  Brock. 

203,  310 

Livingston  v.  Mayor,  8  Wend.  85, 

S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  622,         643,  1229 
Livingston  v.  Kalli,  5   El.  &  Bl. 

132,  587 

Loyd,  In  re,  L.  R.  12  Ch.  Div. 

447,  194 

Llovd  V.  Adams,  4  K.  &  J.  467,  480 
Lloyd  V.  Williams,  2  Blk.  R.  722,  423 
Lobdell    V.    Baldwin,    93    Mich. 

569,  1141 

Lobdell  V.  Horton,  71  Mich.  681, 

S.  C.  40N.  W.  R.  28,  551 

Lock  V.  Vulliamy,   5   B.   &   Ad. 

600,  594 

Locke  V.  Caldwell,  91  111.  417,  377 
Locke  V.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank, 

66  Ind.  353,  526,  1103,  1104 

Locke  V.  Rowell,  47  N.  H.  46,  543 

Locke  V.  S.,  C.  &  P.  R.  R.,  46  la. 

.  109,  8,  816 

Lockett  V.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  Co., 

78  Tex.  211,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R. 

564,  1049 

Lockhart  v.  Horn,  1  Woods  628,  116 
Lockhart  v.  State,  92  Ind.  452,  662 
Lockhart  v.  Wolf,  82  111.  37,  618,  622 
Lockwood  V.  Dills,  74  Ind.  56,  1170 
Lockwood  V.  Quackenbush,  83  N. 

Y.  607,  71,  111 

Lockwood  V.  Reese,  76  Wis.  404, 

S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  313,  528 

Lockwood  V.  Rose,  125  Ind.  588, 

179,  1159 
Lockwood  V.  Thorne,   18  N.  Y. 

285,  556 

Lockwood  V.  Thorne,   11   N.  Y. 

170,  *  553,  556 

Lodge  V.  Barrett,  46  Pa.  St.  477,  35 
Lodor  V.  Baker,  39  N.  J.  L.  49,  471 
Lodor  V.  McCiovern,  48  N.  J.  Eq. 

275,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  199,  484 

Loeb  V.  Mathias,  37  Ind.  306,  262 

Loeb  V.  Weis,  ()4  Ind.  285,  1064 

Loew  V.  Stockor.  61  Pa.  St.  347,  1103 
Lofton  V.  Moore,  83  Ind.  112,  1139 
Logan  V.  Friedline  (Pa.),  14  Atl. 

R.  343,  551 

Logan  V.  Logan.  77  Ind.  558,  635 

Logan  V.   Pennsylvania  Co.,  132 

Pa.  St.  403,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  137, 

254,  1184 
Logan  v.  State,  50  Miss.  269,  660 


.  I-<J02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-7244.] 
Logan  V.  United  States,  144  V .  S. 

263,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  617,        fJ57 
Logan    Branch,   etc..    Bank,    Ex 

parte,  1  Ohio  St.  432,  256 

Logan  County  v.  Lincoln,  81  111. 

156,  372 

Logansport    v.   Justice,    74    Ind. 

378,  1069 

Logansport  v.  La   Rosa,  99   Ind. 

117,  484 

Logansport  v.  Uhl,  99  Ind.  531,  71 
Logansport  v. Wright,  25  Ind.  512, 

1151,  1158 
Logsdon  v.  Roberts,  3  Monr.  255, 

576,  597 
Lohman  v.  People,  1  N.  Y.  380,  781 
Loniax  v.  Mitchell,  93  111.  579,  1231 
Lombard  v.  Hatch,  60  Wis.  459,  398 
Lomer  v.  Meeker,  25  Ind.  361,  1040 
Loney,  In  re,  134  U.  S.  372,  303 

Loney  v.  Bailey,  43  Md.  10,  1197 

Long  V.  British,   etc.,   Ins.   Co., 

137  Pa.  St.  335,  799 

Long  V.  Brookston,  79  Ind.  183,  1171 
Long  V.  Duncan,  10  Kan.  294,  1094 
Long  V.  Gantly,  4  Dev.  &  B.  (N. 

Car.)  313,  1159 

Long  V.  Greville,  4  D.  &  R.  632,  399 
Long  V.  Lamkin,  9  Cush.  (Mass.) 

361,  796,798,806 

London,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lee,  66  Tex. 

247,  1197 

Long  V.  McDonald,  39  Ga.  186,  618 
Long  V.  Morrison,  14  Ind.  595,  804 
Long  V.  North  British,  etc.,  Co., 

137  Pa.  St.  335,  802 

Long  V.  Stafford,  103  N.  Y.  247,  S. 

C.  8  N.  E.  R.  522,  189,  191 

Long  V.  State,  56  Ind.  182,  S.  C.  26 

Am.  R.  19,  820 

Long  V.  State,  12  Ga.  293,  823 

Long  V.  State,  46  Ind.  582,  625,  1230 
Long  V.  State,  23  Neb.  33,  S.  C.  36 

N.  W.  R.  310,  1069 

Long  V.  State,  95  Ind.  481,  738,  1115 
Long  V.  State,  12  Ga.  303,  179 

Long  V.  Straus,  124  Ind.  84,  513 

Long  V.  Valleau   (la.),  55  N.  W. 

R.31,  558 

Long  Branch,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  In 

re,"24  N.  J.  Eq.  398,  497 

Longworth  v.TheCommonCouncil, 

etc.,  32  In.l.  322,  121 

Lonkev  v.  Keves   Silver  ^Mining 

Co.  (Nev.),  i7  L.  R.  A.  351,     "  441 
Lonsdale  V.  Moies,  2  Cliff.  (U.  S. 

CO  538,  200 

Lonsdale   v.  Nelson,   2   Barn.   iS: 

(Vess.  302.  393 

Loomis  V.  Brown,  16  Barb.  325,     1180 


clxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\^Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Loomis  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
159  Mass.  39,  S.  C.  34  N.  E.  R. 
82,  S.  C.  37  Cent.  L.  J.  150,  806 

Loomis  Institute  v.Hur(l,57  Conn. 

435,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  609,  413 

Looney    v.   Bush,   Minor    (Ala.) 

413,  1235 

Loonie  V.  Tillman,  3Tex. Civ.  App. 

332.  S.  C.  22  S.  W.  R.  524,  631 

Lord  V.  Allen,  34  la.  281,  470 

Lord  V.  Brown,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.) 

345,  653 

Lord  V.  Chadbourne,  42  Me.  429, 

S.  C.  66  Am.  Dec.  290,  271 

Lord  V.  Hendrie,  etc.,  Co.,  13 Col. 

393,  S.  C.  22Pac.R.  782,  612 

Lord  V.  Morris,  18  Cal.  482,  384 

Lord  V.  State,  16  N.  H.  325,  1118 

Lord  V.  Veazie,  8  How.  251,    248,1137 
Lord  Byron  v.  Johnston,  2  Merv. 

29,  486 

Lord  Portarlington  v.  Soulby,  3 

Mvlne  &  K.  104,  282 

Lorie  v.  Adams,  51  Kan.  692,  S.C. 

33  Pac.  R.  599,  1066 

Loring  v.  Arnold,  15  R.  I.  428,  S. 

C.  8  Atl.  R.  335,  263 

Loring  v.  Binney,  38  Hun  152,  S. 

C.  101  N. Y.  623,  446,447 

Lorman  v.  Clarke,  2  McLean  (U. 

S.  C.C.)568,  270 

Los  Angeles  v.  Melius,  58  Cal. 

16,  1179 

Los  Angeles  v.    Melius,  59  Cal. 

444,  1179 

Los  Angeles  County  Bank  v.  Ray- 

nor,  61  Cal.  145,  184,  1189 

Los  Angeles  Co.  v.  Reyes  (Cal.), 

32  Pac.  R.  233,  1064 

Los  Angeles  Co.  v.  Superior  Court, 

93  Cal.  380,  S.  C.  28  Pac.R.1062,     205 
Losey  v.  Bond,  94  Ind.  67,  1212 

Loshbaugh   v.   Birdsell,   90  Ind. 

466,  738 

Lotbian  v.  Lothian  (la.) ,  55  N.  W. 

R.  465,  644 

Lothrop  V.   Roberts,  10  Col.  250, 

S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  698,  781 

Lothrop  V.  AVightman,  41  Pa.  St. 

297,  1169 

Lott  V.  State,  122  Ind.  393,  633 

Loucheim  v.  Davies,  148  Pa.  St. 

499,  S.C. 24  Atl.  R.  72,  531 

Louder  v.  Schluter,  78  Tex.  103,  S. 

C.  14S.W.R.  205,  541 

Loudon  V.  Coleman,  59  Ga.  653, 

1161,  1162 
Loudon  Sav.  Fund  Soc.  v.  Hagers- 
town  Savings  Bank,  36  Pa.  St. 
498,  531 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60S-1244.'\ 
Lougbborough  v.  McNevin,74  Cal. 

250,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  435,  400i 

Longhridgev.  City  of  Huntington, 

56  Ind.  253,  450 

Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102  U. 

S.  203,  348 

Louisiana  Bank  v.  Whitney,  121 

U.  S.  284,  1184 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Balch,  105  Ind.  93,  S.  C.  4  N.  E. 
R.  288,  529,  1109 

Louisville,  E.  &  St.  L.,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Berry  (Ind.),  35  N.  E. 
Rep.  565,  740 

Louisville,  N.  0.  &  T.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Caster  (Miss.),  5  So.  R.  388,         534r 
Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Cauley,  119  Ind.  142,  529' 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crunk,  119 

Ind.  542,  1212 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co. v.  Dancy, 

97Ala.  338,  S.C.llSo.R.796,     1055 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Don- 

negan,  111  Ind.  179,  588 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Earl 

(Ky.),  22S.  W.  R.  607,  1068 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Eves,  1  Ind.  App.  224,  548 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fal- 
vev,  104  Ind.  409, 

712,  722,  740,  741,  778,  810,  1069 
Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Frawley,  110  Ind.  18,  807,  1104 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Rv-  Co.  v. 

Green, 120  Ind.307,     1104,  1107,  1108 
Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Grubb,  88  Ind.  85,  638 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
87  Ala.  708,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  710, 
S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  84,       1064,  1066 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harrigan, 

94  Ind.  245,  1237 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hart,  110 
Ind.  273,  S.C.  4  L.  R.  A.  549, 

1108,  1147,  1148,  1156,  1108 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hendicks, 
128  Ind.  462,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R. 
58,  1158,  1165 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ilixon,  101 

Ind.  337,  1209 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hubbard, 

116  Ind. 193,  1090 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Jones,  108  Ind.  551,  S.  C.  9  N. 
E.  R.  470,  711 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jordan,  IG 

L.  R.  A.  251,  S.C.  11  So.  R.  Ill,     17' 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co,  v,  Kano,  120 
Ind.  149,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  80, 

1089,  llOO 


TAHLE    OF    CASES. 


clxix 


[References  are  to  Parjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Louisville,   etc.,  Co.   v.    Kendall 

(In.l.),  36  N.  E.  R.  415,  1244 

Louisville  ct  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ken- 
ley,  !)2  Tenn.  207,  S.  C.  21  S.  W. 

R.  32(),  1064 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lockridge, 

U3  Ind.  191,  342 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCoy,  81 

Ky.  403,  1165 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 

Kenna,  13  Lea  (Tenn.)  280,         537 
Louisville,  N.  ().  &  T.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Mask,  64  Miss.  738,  S.  C.  2  So. 

R.  360,  559,  Co3 

Louisville,  N.  A.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Nicholai,  4  Ind.  App.  119,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.  R.  424,  1081 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Nicholson,  60  Ind.  158,  609 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Nitsclie.  126  Ind.  229,  S.  C.  9  L. 

R.  A.  750,  535,  957 

Louisville,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Orr,  94 

Ala.  602,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  167,        502 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hurt 

(Ala.),  13  So.  Rep.  130,  823 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pear- 
son (Ala.),  12  So.  R.  176,  811 
Louisville.  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Pedigo,  108  Ind.  481,  1091 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Phil- 
yaw,  88  Ala.  264,  S.  C.  6  So   R. 

837,  371 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Power,  119 

Ind.  269,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  751, 

148,  151 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rush,  127 

Ind.  545,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  1010, 

152,  1168 
Louisville  v.  Sav.  Bank,  104  U.  S. 

469,  379 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shanks,  132 

Ind.  395,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  1111.         182 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Snyder,  10 

Am.  St.  R.  60,  740 

Louisville,  N.  A.  i<c  C.  Rv.  Co.  v. 

Stommel,  ]2(;  Ind.  35,  "  1097 

Louisville,  E.  i'^  St.  L.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

Summers,  131  Ind.  241,  S.  C.  30 

N.  E.  R.  873,  1096 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

107  Ind.  442,  103,  108,  519,  1098 

Louisville  c<c  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wat- 
son, 90  Ala. 68,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  249,  549 
Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Rv.  Co.  v. 

Wood.  113  Ind.  544,  S."C.  14  N. 

E.  R.  r)72.  110,  111.  622,  1096 

Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  Rv.  Co.  v. 

Worlev,  107  Ind.  320.  S.  C.  7  N. 

E.  R.  215,  10S8,  1089,  1224 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Lounsburv  v.  Catron,  8  Neb.  469,     345 
Love  V.  Bryson  (Ark.),  22  S.  W. 

R.  341,     ■  644 

Love  v.  Burns,  .35  la.  150,  576 

Love  v.  DickcrsDii,  8.")  N.  Car.  5,  677 
Love  v.  FairlieM,  K)  111.  .303,  4<J6 

Lovierv.(iilj)in,6l)ana(Ky.)321,  469 
Love  V.  Hall,  76  Ind.  32H,  1131,  1195 
Love  V.  Hoss,  62  Ind.  255,  362 

Love  V.  Love,  55  Ala.  554,  373 

Lovejoy  v.  Albee,  33  Me.  414,  S.  C. 

54  Am.  Dec.  630,  303 

Lovejoy  v.  Lunt,  48  Me.  377,  444 

Lovejoy  v.  United  States,  128  U. 

S.  171,  1059 

Lovelady  v.  Davis,  33  Miss.  577, 

300,  345 
Low  V,  Nolte,  16  111.  475,  577 

Low  V.  Tandy,  70  Tex.  745,  505 

Lowe  V.  Dore,  32  Me.  27,  165,  323 

Lowe  V.  Hamilton,  1.32  Ind.  406, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  1117,  1200 

Lowe  V.  Ryan,  94  Ind.  450,  719 

Lowenbein  v.  Fuklner,  21  N.  Y.  S. 

615,  478 

Lowenburg  v.  People,  27   N.   Y. 

336,  152,  661 

Lowenstein  v.  Bew,  68  Miss.  265, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  269,  465 

Lowenstein   v.   Gillespie,   6    Lea 

(Tenn.)  641,  450 

Lowenstein  v.  Glidewell,  5  Dill. 

(U.S.)  325,  459 

Lowenstein  v.  Mcintosh,  37  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  251,  587 

Lowenstein  v.  Phelan,17  Neb.  429, 

412 
Lower  v.  Franks,  115  Ind.  334,  1076 
Lower  v.  Winters,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

263,  805 

Lower  Catham,  In  re,  35  N.  J.  L. 

497,  1129 

Lowerv  v.  Caldwell,  139  Mass.  88, 

1140 
Lowerv  v.  State.  72  Ga.  649,  1074 

Lowman  v.  Sheets,  124  Ind.  416.  1100 
Lowndes  v.  Miller,  25  S.  Car.  119, 

1184 
Lowrev  v.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  R. 

Co.,  83  Ga.  504.  10  S.  E.  R.  123,     432 
Lowrev  v.  Robinson,  141  Pa.  St. 

189,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  779,  1044 

Lowrie  v.  France,  7  Neb.  191,  1165 
Lowry  v.  Cady,  4  Vt.  504,  S.  C.  24 

Am.  Dec.  628,  462 

Lowrv  V.  Erwin,6  Rob.  (La.)  192, 

S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  556,  316 

Lowrv  V.  Lawrence,  1  Caines  (N. 

Y.V69.  377 

Loy  V.  Loy,  90  Ind.  404,  1237 


clxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


iBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Loy  V.  Pettv,  3  Ind.  App.  241,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  788,  785,  790 

Loyless  v.  Hodges,  44  Ga.  647,        475 
Lucas  V.  Brooks,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

436,  1064 

Lucas  V.  Casady,  12  la.  567,  621 

Lucas  V.  Hickman,  2  Stew.  (Ala.) 

11,  S.  C.  19  Am.  Dec.  44,  376 

Luce  V.  Clarke,  49  Minn.  356,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  R.  1162,  373 

Luck  V.  State,  96  Ind.  16,  813,  815 

Luckhart  v.  Ogden,  30  Cal.  547, 

537,  554,  1105 
Luckie  v.  Johnson,  89  Ga.  321,  S. 

C.15S.  E.R.  459,  531 

Luco  V.  Commercial  Bank,  70  Cal. 

339,  128,  327 

Luco  V.  De  Toro,  91  Cal.  405,  S.  C. 

27  Pac  R.  1082,  372 

Luco  V.  United  States,  23   How. 

(U.  S.)  515,  35 

Lucy  V.  Williams,  27  Mo.  280,  314 
Ludlow  V.  Johnson,  3  Ohio  553,  S. 

C.  17  Am.  Dec.  609,  191 

Ludlow's  Heirs  v.  Kidd's  Exr.,  3 

Ohio  541,  500 

Ludwigv.  Gorsuch,154Pa.  St.  413, 

S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  434,  531 

Luft  V.  Lingane,  17  R.  I.  420,  S.  C. 

22  Atl.  R.  942,  1124 

Luke  V.  Calhoun  County,  52  Ala. 

115,  30 

Luke  V.  Johnnycake,  9  Kan.  511, 

1197 
Lukens  v.  Ford,  87  Ga.  541,  S.  C. 

13  S.  E.  R.  949,  1064 

Lundberg  v.  Single  Men's  Assn., 
41  Minn.  508,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R. 
394,  1202 

Lung  V.  Deal,  16  Ind.  349,  1065 

Luntz  V.  Greve,  102  Ind.  173,  361 

Lurton  v.  Carson,  2  Blackf.  464,  1229 
Lusher  v.  Scites,  4  W.  Va.  11,  122 
Lusk  V.  Clayton,  70  N.  Car.  184,  577 
Lusk  V.  Ramsey,  3  Munf.  417,  196 
Luther  v.   Medbury  (R.    I.),   26 

Atl.  R.  37,  594 

Lutterell  v.  Reynell,  1  Mod.  286,  806 
Luttrell   V.    Martin,  112  N.  Car. 

593,  S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  573,  1220 

Lutz  V.  Atlantic  &  Pacific  R.  R. 

Co.  (N.Mex.),16L.R.A.819,     1053 
Lutz  V.  City  of    Crawfordsville, 

109  Ind.  466,  985 

Lutz  V.  Com.,  29  Pa.  St.  441,  1171 

Lutz  V.  Kellv,  47  la.  307,  280 

Lutz  V.  Linthicum,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

165,  592,  601 

Lux  V.  Haggin  (Cal.),  13  Pac.  R. 
654,  640 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  608-1244.1 
Lydiard  v.  Chute,  45  Minn.  277,     444 
Lyle  V.  Rodgers,  5  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

394,  595 

Lyles  V.  Commonwealth,  88  Va. 

396,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  802,  660 

Lyles  V.  McClure,  1  Bailey  (So. 

Car.)  7,  1192 

Lyles  V.  Roach,  30  So.  Car.  291,  S. 

C.  9  S.  E.  R.  334,  551 

Lyman  v.  Bank,  12  How.  (U.  S.) 

225,  550 

Lyman  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

59  Vt.  167,  493 

Lyman  v.  Fiske,  17  Pick.  (Mass.) 

231,  543 

Lyman  v.  Gould,  47  Me.  159,  736 

Lyman  y.  Milton,  44  Cal.  630, 

608,  612,  613 
Lyman  v.  Philadelphia,  56  Pa.  St. 

488,  805 

Lyman  v.  Wood,  42  Vt.  113,  471 

Lynch,  In  re,  9   Abb.  N.  Cases 

69,  232 

Lynch  v.  Baldwin,  69  111.  210,  544 
Lynch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

(Ind.),  36N.  E.  R.  44,  1095 

Lynch  v.  Crary,  52  N.  Y.  181,  468 

Lynch  V.  Grayson  (N.  Mex.),  32 

Pac.  R.  149,  1133 

Lynes  v.  Eldred,  47  Wis.  426,  628 

Lynch  v.  Jennings,  43  Ind.  276, 

360,  403 
Lynch  v.  Met.  Elev.  R.   Co.,  129 

N.  Y.  274,    S.  C.  15  L.  R.   A. 

287,  349 

Lynch  v.  Mosher,  4  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  86,  633 

Lynch  v.  Nugent,  80  la.  422,  S.  C. 

46  N.  W.  R.  61,  595 

Lyne  v.  Sanford,  82  Tex.  58,  S.  C. 

19  S.  W.  R.  947,  329 

Lyon  V.  Davis,  111  Ind.  384,  1229 

Lyon  V.  Guild,  5  Heisk.   (Tenn.) 

175,  550 

Lyons  v.  Lawrence,  12  111.  App. 

531,  1159 

Lyon  V.  Manufacturing  Co.,  125 

U.  S.  698,  1177 

Lyon  V.  Sibley,  32  Me.  576,  1042 

Lyon  V.  Tallmadge,  14  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  501,  736 

Lyon  y.  Vanatta,  35  la.  521,  432 

Lyons  y.  Cooledge,  89  111.  529,  321 
Lyons  v.  Mnnson,  99  U.  S.  684,  134 
Lyons    y.    Teal,    28    La.    Ann. 

"592,  719 

Lyons  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,    Co., 

'lOl  Ind.  419,  1037 

Lytle  V.  Lytic,  48  Ind.  200,  288 

Lytton  V.  Baird,  95  Ind.  349,  552 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


clxxi 


[References  are  to  Pcujes,  Vol.  I,  pp.  l~il()'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.'] 


M 


McA<lam8  v.  Stihvell,  13  Pa.  St. 

90,  -394 

McAdory  v.  State,  62  Ala.  154,  1071 
McAfee  v.  Reynolds,  180  Ind.  33,  481 
McAfee  v.  State,  31  Ga.  411,  138 

McAleer  v.  Clay  Co.,  38  Fed.  R. 

707,  383 

McAlees  v.  Supreme  Sitting  (Pa.), 

13  Atl.  R.  7.55,  589 
McAlister  v.  Olmstead,  1  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  210,  201 

McAllister  v.  Ball,  24  111.  149,  1195 
McAllister  v.  Conn.    Mut.,   etc., 

Co.,  78  Ky.  531,  1156 

McAllister  v.  Detroit  Free  Press, 

85  Mich.  453,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 

612,  ■  720 

McAllister  v.Engle,  52  Mich.  56,  1079 
McAllister  v.  Willev,  60  Ind.  195, 

1158 
McAlpin  V.  Hedges,   21   Fed.  R. 

689,  367 

McAlpine  v.  Smith,  68  Me.  423,  432 
McAlpine  v.  Sweetser,  76  Ind.  78,  320 
McAnear  v.    Epperson.   54   Tex. 

220,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  625, 

294,  318,  443 
McArdle   v.  McArdle,    12   Minn. 

122,  1169 

McArthur  v.  Dane,  61  Ala.  539,  347 
McArthurv.Goddin,12  Bush(Ky.) 

274,  373 

McArthur  v.  Leffler,  110  Ind.  526,  614 
McAvoy  V.  Long,  13  111.  147,  537 

McBean  v.  Fox,  1  111.  App.  177,  354 
McBee  v.  Bowman,  89  Tenn.  132, 

S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  481,  679 

McBride  v.  Hagan,  1  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  326.  584 

McBride  v.  Harn,  48  la.  151,  302 

McBride  v.  Latiiam,  79  Ga.  661,  1044 
McBride  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  19 

Ore.  64,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  814,  177 
]\IcBride  v.  Settles  (Tex.),  16  S. 

W.  R.  422,  1159 

McBride  v.  State,  130  Ind.  525,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  699,  293 

McCabe  v.  Bank  of  Ireland,  L.  R. 

14  App.  Cas.  413,  1048 
IVIcCain  v.  Peart,  145  Pa.  St.  516,  362 
TSIcCall  V.Hitchcock.  7  Bush615,  1182 
McCali  V.  McCall.  36  S.  Car.  80,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E.  R.  348,  600 

McCall  V.  Peachy,  1   Call.  (Va.) 

55  ''48 

McCall  V.  Seevers,  5  Ind.  1S7,        liOO 


McCalhi  V.  Elv,  64  Pa.  St.  2-54,       1192 
McCallcv  V.  (Jti'v,  90  Ala.  302,  S. 

C.  8  So.  R.  157,  401 

McCaUiiin  v.Hibernia,  etc., Assn., 

70  ('ill.  1()3,  565 

McCampbell    v.  McCamphell,    15 

Am.  Dec.  48,  S.  C.  5  Litt.  92,        269 
McCandiess Township  Road,  In  re, 

110  Pa.  St.  605,  S.  C.  1  Atl.  R.  594,  173 
McCann  v.  Conmiissioners,  9  Neb. 

324,  581 

McCann  v.  People,  88  III.  103, 

634,  635 
McCann  v.  Randall,  147  Mass.  81, 

S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  666,  381 

McCaop,    Succession   of,    10    La. 

Ann.  224,  438 

McCardle,  Ex  parte,  7  Wall.  506,     253 
McCarn  v.  Coolev,  30  Neb.  552,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.'715,  1231 

McCarthy  v.  Cass  Ave.,  etc.,  Co., 

92  Mo.".536,  657 

McCarthy  v.  Garraughty,  10  Ohio 


V.  Peake,  18  How.  Pr. 
V.   Nebraska,    1    Neb. 


1214 

195 

719 
527 


St.  438, 
McCarthy 

138, 
McCartnv 

121, 
jMcCarty  v.  Tarr,  83  Ind.  444, 
McCarver  V.  Nealey,  1  Greene  (la.) 

3()0,  509 

:sicCanlev  v.  Weller,  12  Cal.  500,  225 
McCiannahan  v.    West,    100  Mo. 

309,  320 

McClannahan's  Heirs  v.  Hender- 
son, 1  T.  B.  Mon.  261,  347 
McClaren  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  83  Ind.  319,  1051,  1112 

McClarin  v.  Nesbit,2  Nott.  &  McC. 

(S.  Car.)  519,  400 

McClaskev  v.  Barr,  47  Fed.  R.  154,  508 
McClaskev  v.  Barr.48  Fed.  R.  130,  1186 
McClellan  v.  Binklev.  7S  Ind.. 503,  636 
INIcClellan  v.  Hurd,  11  Col.  126,  1169 
McClellan  v.  Pveatt,  50  Fed.  R. 


68(5, 


1079 
1143 


McClelland  v.  Bond. 92  Ind.  424, 
McClelland  v.  ISIiller,  28  Ohio  St 

488, 
McClelland  V.  Ry.Co.,94  Ind.  276, 
INIcClendon  v.  Kemp,  IS  La.  .\nn. 

162, 
McCleneghan  v.  Reid,34  Neb.  472, 

S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  1037,  179, 

I^IcClinch  V.  Stursis.  72  :\Ie.  288. 
IMcClintock  v.  Curd,  32  Mo.  411. 

512. 
McClintock  v.Theiss,74  Ind.  200. 

1121,  1154 
McCloskev  v.  Barr,  38  Fed.  R.'ni5,  529 


158 
1048 


704 
122 

(i79 


clxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

McCloskev  V.  Davis  (Ind.  App.), 

35N.  E.'R.  187,  677,680 

McCloskev  v.  McCloskey  (Pa.),  16 

Atl.  R.  30,  550 

McCloskey  v.  Sweeney,  66  Cal.  53,  293 
McClung's  Ex'rs  v.  Spottswood,  19 

Ala.  165,  531 

McClure  v.  Bruck,  43  Minn.  305, 

S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  438,  187 

McClure  v.  McClurg,  53  Mo.  173,  145 
McClure  v.  Sparta,  84  Wis.  269,  S. 

C.  54N.  W.R.  237,  1076 

McClure  v.  State,  77  Ind.  287, 

214,  287,  1111 
McColgin  V.  McKav,  25  Ga.  631,  1043 
McCoUem  v.  White,  23  Ind.  43,  466 
McCollum  v.  Eager,  2  How.  (U.  S.) 

61,  254,  1178 

McCollum  v.  Lougan,  29  Mo.  451,  1197 
McComb  v.  Turner,  14  Smed.  &  M. 

119,  582,  583 

McCombs  V.  Allen,  82  N.  Y.  114,  469 
McConihay  v.  Wright,  121  U.  S. 

201,  1128 

McConkev  v.  McCranev,  71  Wis. 

576,       '  '  438 

McConnel  v.  Kibbe,  29  111.  483,  370 
McConnell  v. Huntington, 108  Ind. 

405,  1169 

McConnell  v.  Kitchens,  20  S.  Car. 

430,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  845,       676,  677 
McConnell  v.  Osage,  80  la.  293, 

1168,  1206 
McConnell  v.  Osage,  80  la.  296,  699 
McCool  V.  State,  7  Ind.  378,  142 

McCord  V.  Cooper,  30  Ind.  9,  33,  34 
McCorkle  v.  Rhea,  75  Ala.  213,  259 
McCorkle  v.  State,  14  Ind.  39,  1111 
McCormack  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  53 

Ind.  466,  457,  604 

McCormick  v.  Gleim  (Mont.),  34 

Pac.  R.  1016,  783 

McCormick  v.  Miller,  19  Minn, 

443,  1156 

McCormick  V.Pennsylvania,  etc., 

Co.,  49  N.  Y.  303,  332,  454 

McCormick  v.  Railroad  Co.,  49  N. 

Y.  303,  610 

McCormick  v.  Sullivant,10  Wheat. 

192,  132,  275 

McCormick   v.  Walter  A.  Wood 

Co.,  72  Ind.  518,  206 

McCormick  v.  Wheeler,  36  111.  114, 

S.  C.  85  Am.  Dec.  388,  182,  190 

McCormick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  100 

Ind.  285,  676 

McCormick,  etc.,  Co.v.  Schneider, 

36  Neb.  206,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R. 
257,  454,  611 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
McCoy  V.  Able,  131  Ind.  417, 

126,  133,  260,  407,  1227,  1236^ 
McCoy  V.  Rives,  1  Smed.  &  M. 

(Miss.)  592,  1116 

McCoy  V.  Trucks,  121  Ind.  292,       181 
McCracken  v.  Clarke,  31  Pa.  St. 

498,  572,  584 

McCracken  v.  Flanagan,  127   N. 

Y.493,  S.C.24  Am.St.  R.481,  446 
McCracken  v.  West,  17  Ohio  16,  788 
McCrae  v.  Robeson,  2  Murph.(N. 

Car.)  127,  579 

McCrary  v.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  577,     591 
McCrary  v.Pennsylvania,etc.,Co., 

5  Fed.  R.  367,  491 

McCraw  v.  Williams,   33   Gratt. 

510,  215 

McCray  v.  Humes,  116  Ind.  103, 

S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  500,  234 

McCreary  v.  Fike,  2  Blackf.  374, 

1033,  1035 
McCrillis  v.  Harrison  County,  63 

la.  592,  S.  C.  19  N.  W.  R.  679,  245 
McCrorj'  v.  Anderson,  103  Ind.  12, 

163,  1076 
McCue  V.Wapello  Co., 56  la.  698, 

1144 
McCulloch  V.  Dawson,  1  Ind.413,  398 
McCulloch  V.  Dobson,  133  N.  Y. 

114,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  641,  800,  811 
McCulloch  V.  Dodge,  8  Kan.  476,  1181 
McCulloch  V.  Elhs,  28  111.  App. 

439,  454 

McCulloch  V.  State,  48  Ind.  109,        30 
McCullough  V.  Davis,  108  Ind.  292, 

S.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  276,  712 

McCullough    V.   McCullough,    12 

Ind.  487.  595 

McCullough  V.  McCullough,  14  Pa. 

St.  295,  374 

McCullough   V.  Mitchell,  42  Ga. 

495,  599 

McCullough    V.    Moore,  9    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  305,  169 

McCullv  V.  Clarke,  40  Pa.  St.  399, 

S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  584,  547,  1105 
McCune  v.  Norwich  Gas  Co.,  30 

Conn.  521,  S.  C.  79  Am.  Dec. 

278,  527 

McCurrv  v.  Hooper,  12  Ala.  823, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  280,  289,  706 

McCutchen  v.  Miller,  31  Miss.  65,     498 
McDaniel  v.   Correll,  19  111.  226, 

S.  C.  68  Am.  Dec.  587,  117, 443 

McDaniel  v.  McLendon,  85   Ga. 

614,  S.  C.  11,  S.  E.  R.  869,  1200 

McDaniel   v.  Stokes,  19   S.    Car. 

60,  1220 

McDaniel  v.  AVill,  2  Bibb.  550,      1162 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages,  V^ol.  I,  pp 

McDermott  v.  N.   Y.,  etc.,  K.  R. 

Co.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  435,  549 

McDerniottv.  State,  89  Iiul.  187,  544 
McDermott  v.  Tlioiniison,  29  Fla. 

299,  S.  C.  10  So.  U.5S4,  '     443 

McDonald  v.  Atlantic  <<c   Pacific 

R.  R.  Co.  (Ariz.),  21  Pac.  Rep. 

338,  552 

McDonald  v.  Reall,  55  Ga.  28S,  1068 
McDonald  v.  lUinn,  3  Denio  45,  142 
McDonald  v.  Cooper,  32  Kan.  58,  11G3 
McDonald  v.  Cooper,  32  Fed.  R. 

745,  44(5,  450 

McDonald  v.  Dodge,  97  Cal.  333, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  909,  149 

McDonald    v.    Donahue,    30    la. 

508,  1201 

McDonald  v.  Elfes,  61  Ind.  279,  1229 
McDonald  V.  Fourney  (la.), 54  N. 

W.  R.  470,  1200 

McDonald     v.    Geisendorff,     128 

Ind.  1.53,  1210,  12.33 

IMcDonald  v.  Gillett,  69  Me.  271,  471 
McDonald  v.  Holmes,  22  Ore.  212, 

S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  735,  364 

McDonald   v.   Hovey,   110  U.  S. 

619,  380, 381 

McDonald  v.  McAllister,  32  Neb. 

514,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  377,  618 

McDonald  v.  Matney,  82  Mo.  358,  535 
McDonald  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

Ala.  358,  269 

McDonald  v.  Mulhollan,  5  Watts 

(Pa.)  173,  544 

McDonald   v.  Ortman,  88   Mich. 

645,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  644,  1056 

McDonald  v.  People,  126  111.  150, 

S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  547,  820,  821 
McDonald  v.  State,  90  Ind.  320,  809 
McDonald  v.  State,  80  Wis.  407, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  185,  1238 

McDonald   v.   Walter,  40  N.  Y. 

551,  1161 

McDonald  v.  AVeir,  76  Mich.  243, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  1114,  624 

McDonald  v.  Wolff,  40  Mo.  App. 

302,  404 

McDonough  v.  Gaynor,  18  N.  J. 

Eq.  249,^  476 

McDonough  v.  Nicholson,  46  Mo. 

35,  1181,  1182 

McDougal    V.    Fleming,   4    Ohio 

388,  1232 

McDowell  V.  Crawford,   11  Gratt. 

377,  179 

McDowell  V.  .Tones,  58  Ala.  25,  155 
McDowell  V.  Preston,  26  (la.  528,  797 
IVIcDowell  V.  Thomas,  4  Neb.  542,  596 
McDowell    V.     Van    Deusen,    12 

Johns.  356,  225 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60.3-1244.] 

McDuUie  V.  Clark,  .39  llun  (N.Y.) 

166,  541 

McHlfresh  v.  Guard,  .32  Ind.  408,  1095 
McKlmoyle  v.  Cohen,  2  Am.    L. 

Ca.s.  52!t,  329 

McKlreath  v.  Middleton,   89  (ia. 

83,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  906,  581,  582 
McEnev  v.  Town  of  Sullivan,  125 

Ind.  407,  1.34,  165,  .324 

McEwen  v.  Bigelow,40  Mich.  215,  524 
McFadrien  v.  Reynolds   (Pa.),  10 

Cent.  R.  387,  781 

McFadden  v.  Schill,  84Tex.  77,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  .3()8,  1068 

McFadden    v.   Wallace,  38    Cal. 

51,  663 

McFad.lin  v.  Preston,  54 Tex.  403,  220 
McFadinv.  Catron   (Mo.),  25  S. 

W.  R.  .506,  1074 

McFarlaml  v.  Hall,  17  Tex.  676,  1179 
McFarlandv.  Mathis,  10  Ark. .560,  602 
McFarlane  v.  Cushman,  21  Wis. 

401,  .585 

McFarlin  v.  State,  41  Tex.  23,  799 

McFee  v.  Harris,  25  Pa.  St.  102,  255 
McGarvey  v.  Ford  (N.  Mex.),  27 

Pac.  R.  415,  625 

McGaughev  v.  Woods,    106   Ind. 

380,  S.  C".  7  N.  E.  R.  7,  430 

McGeash  v.    Nonlberg    (Minn.), 

55  N.^W.  R.  117,  644 

McGee  v.  Wells,  37  S.  Car.  365,  S. 

C.  16  S.  E.  R.  29,  1069 

McGeehen  v.  Dutlield,  5  Pa.  St. 

497,  585 
McGehan,  Ex  parte,  22  Ohio  St. 

442,  1.54 

McGeorge  v.  Harrison,  etc.,  Co., 

141  Pa.  St.  575,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R. 

671,  455 

McGhee  v.   Gainesville,    78  Ga. 

790,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  670,  435 

McGhee  v.  McGhee,  8  Ga.  295,  S. 

C.  52  Am.  Dec.  407,  477 

McGillin  v.  Claflin,   52   Fed.    R. 

657,  608,  611 

McGill,   Ex  parte,   6  Tex.   App. 

498,  341 
McGill  V.  Wallace,  22  Mo.   App. 

675,  111 

ISIcGinnis  v.  Gabe,  7S  Ind.  457,  514 
McGinnis  v.  Currv,  13  W.  Va.29,  582 
McGinnis  v.  State",  9  Humph.  43, 

S.  C.  49  Am.  Dec.  697,  343 

McGinnis  v.  State,  24  Ind.  .500,  163 
McGintv  V.  Athol  Reservoir  Co., 

1.55  Mass.  183,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 

510,  536 

:McGlaughlin  v.  O'Rourke,  12  la. 

-IM),  255 


clxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
McGlawhorn  v.  Worthington,  98 

N.  Car.  199,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  033, 

450 
McGloin  V.  McGloin,  70  Tex.  634, 

1163 
McGonnigle  v.  Arthur,  27  Ohio  St. 

251,  1222 

McGoon  V.  Little,  7  111.  42,  639 

McGoon  V.  Shirk,  54  111.  408,  S. 

C.  5  Am.  R.  122,  400 

McGough  V.  Jamison,  107  Pa.  St. 

336,  360 

McGovern  v.  Keokuk  Lumber  Co., 

61  la.  265,  628 

McGowen  v.  Campbell,  28    Kan. 

25,  179 

McGowan  v.  State,  9  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

184,  666 

McGrail  v.  Kalamazoo,  94  Mich. 

52,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  955,  811 

McGregg  v.  State,  4  Blackf .  101,  1122 
McGregor  v.  Baylies,  19  la.  43,  170 
McGregor  v.  Board,  107  N.  Y.511, 

S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  420,  559 

McGregor  v.  Hubbs,  125  Ind.  487, 

1215 
McGregor  v.  Morrow,  40  Kan.  730, 

S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  157,  322 

McGregor,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Sioux 

City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  49  la.  604,  595 
McGrew,  Ex  parte,  40  Tex.  472,  304 
McGuff  V.  State,  88  Ala.  147,  S.  C. 

16  Am.  St.  R.  25,  519 

McGuffev  V.  McClain,130  Ind.  327, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  296,  1215 

McGuire     v.     Hay,     6     Humph. 

(Tenn.)  419,  1047 

McGuire  v.  Lawrence,  etc.,  Co., 

156  Mass.  324,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R. 

3,  1068 

McGuire  v.  State,  37  Miss.  369,  653 
McGuire  v.  State,  10  Tex.  App. 

125,  1123 

McGuire  V.  Wallace,  109  Ind.  284, 

S.  C.  10  N.  E.  R.  Ill,  154 

McGuirl  V.  McGuirl,  12  111.  App. 

624,  797 

McHennry's  Lessee  v.  Wallen,  2 

Yerg.  (Tenn.)  441,  638 

McHugh  V.  State,  38  Ohio  St.  153,  660 
Mcllvain  v.  State,  80  Ind.  69,  1090 
Mcllvaine  v.  Coxe,  4  Cranch  209, 

277 
Mclnerney  v.  City  of  Denver,  17 

Col.  302,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  516, 

643,  1127 
Mclniffe    v.    Wheelock,    1    Gray 

(Mass.)  600,  400 

Mclntire  v.  Morris,  14  "Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  90,  586 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Mcintosh  V.  Ensign,  28  N.  Y.  169, 

1040 
Mclver  v.  Kyger,  3  Wheat.  53,  370 
McJilton  V.  Smizer,  18  Mo.  Ill,  402 
MeJimsev   v.   Traverse,    1    Stew. 

(Ala.)  244,  S.  C.  18  Am.  Dec. 

43,  597 

McJunkins  v.  State,  10  Ind.  140, 

1060,  1063 
McKaughan  v.  Harrison,  25  Tex. 

(Supp.)  461,  1195 

McKay  v.  Lasher,  121  N.  Y.  477, 

812,  816 
McKay  v.  Montana,  etc.,  Co.,  13 

Mont.  — ,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  999,   1223 
McKav  V.  Riley,  135  111.  586,  S.  C. 

26  N.  E.  R.  525,  718, 

McKean  v.Jones,19  Can.  S.C.489,  1177 
McKeev.  McDonald,  17  Ind.  518,  1182 
McKee  v.  Metraw,  31  Minn.  429,  609 
McKee  v.  People,  36  N.  Y.  113,  1073. 
McKee  v.  Perchement,  69  Pa.  St.        I; 

342,  544'! 

McKeen  v.  Boord,  60  Ind.  280,  1239 i 
McKeen  v.  Oliphant,  18  N.  J.  L. 

442,  595,  596 

McKeen  v.  Porter,  134  Ind.  483,  1067 
McKeever  v.  Ball,  71  Ind.  398,  318 
McKellip  V.  Mcllhenny,   4  Watts 

(Pa.)317,  S.C.28  Am.  Dec.  711, 
McKelvey  v.  Chesapeake, etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  35  W.Va.  500,  S.  C.  14  S.  E. 

R.  261,  1076,  1092 

McKenna  v.  Fisk,  1  How.  (U.  S.) 

241, 
McKenna  v.  Lyle,  155  Pa.  St.  599, 

S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  777, 
McKenna  v.  People,  81  N.  Y.  360, 
McKenzie  v.  Noble,  13  Rich.  (S. 

C.)  147,  .,  198 

McKenzie  v.  State,  24  Ark.  636,  1238 
McKenzie  v.  Sykes,  47  Mich.  294,  536 
McKeon  v.  See,  51  N.  Y.  300,  1131 
McKerras  v.  Gardner,  3  .Johns. 137,  369 
McKethan  V.Ray,  71  N. Car.  165,  1138 
McKey  v.  Cobb,  33  Miss.  533,  452 

McKev  V.  Hyde  Park,  134  U.  S.  84,  543 
McKim  V.  Doane,  137  Mass.  195,  289 
McKinlev  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  118 

Ind.  375,  1159 

McKinney  v.  Jones,  57  Wis.  301,  347 
McKinney  v.  Jones,  55  Wis.  39,  179 
McKinney  v.  McKinney,  8  Ohio 

St.  423,  1211,  1214 

McKinnev  v.  Monongahela,  etc., 

Co.,  14  Pa.  St.  65,  1129 

McKinney  v.  Neil,  1  McLean  540,  800 
McKinney  v.Page,32  Me.  513,  573, 593 
McKinnev  v.  People,  43  Am.  Dec. 

65,         "  1117 


507 


306 

585 
543 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


clxxv 


[References  are  to  ra{/cs,  Vol.  I,  pp 
McKinney  v.  Snider,  IKJ  Ind.  KiO, 

S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  521;,  528 

McKinney  v.  Snyder,  78  Pa.  St. 

497,  383,  1066 

McKinney   v.   Springer,   6   Ind. 

453,  1169 

McKinney  v.  Springer,  3  Ind.  59,  361 
McKinney  v.  State,  3  Wyo.  719, 

S.  C.  16  L.  R.  A.  710,  1162 

McKinney  v.  State,  101  Ind.  .355,  1199 
McKinnis  v.  Freeman,  38  la.  364,  576 
McKinsey  v.  McKee,  109  Ind.  209, 

S.  C.  9N.  E.  R.  771,  622 

Mc Knight,  In  re,  11  Mont.  126,  736 
McKniglit  V.  Diinlop,  5  N.  Y.  537, 

S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  370,  718 

McKnight  v.  Tavlor,  1  How.  (U. 

S.)  161,  ■  376,  377 

McKowen  v.  McDonald,  43  Pa.  St. 

441,  1025 
McLachlan   v.   Wright,  3  Wend. 

348,  1160 

McLain  v.  Duncan,  57  Ark.  49,  S. 

C.  20  S.  W.  R.  597,  427 

McLain  v.  State,  18  Neb.  154,  S.  C. 

24  N.  W.  R.  720,  692,  693 

McLane  v.  Elder  (Tex.),  23  S.  W. 

R.  757,  1063 

McLane  v.  State,  4  Ga.  335,  1171 

McLaran  v.  Wilhelm,  50  Mo.  App. 

658,  1195 

McLaren  v.  Birdsong,  24  Ga.  265,  656 
McLaren  v.  Kehlor,  22  Wis.  297,  177 
McLaughlin  v.  Bascom,  38  la.  660,  539 
McLaughlin  v.  Cowley.  131  Mass. 

70,  798 

McLaughlin  v.  Dane,  40  Kan.  392, 

S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  853,  1178 

McLaughlin  v.  Dunn,  45  Mo.  App. 

645,  351 

McLaughlin  v.  Etchison,  127  Ind. 

474,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  152,  

McLaughlin  v.  Jannev,  6  Gratt. 

609,  "  492 

McLaughlin  v.  McCrory,  55  Ark. 

442,  S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  R.  56,  S.  C. 

18  S.  W.  R.  762,  271,304 

McLaughlin  v.  O'Rourke,  12  la. 

459,  492 

McLaughlin  v.  O'Toole,  20  N.  Y. 

S.  653,  1142 

McLaughlin  v.  Wheeler  (S  Dak.), 

47  N.  W.  R.  816,  539 

McLaughlin  v.  AVheeler  (S.  Dak.), 

50  N.  AV.  R.  834,  449 

McLaurinv.  Baum  (Miss.),  12  So. 

R.  594,  657 

McLaurine  v.  ^lonroe,  30 IMo.  462,  498 
McLean,  v.   Burbank,    12    Minn. 

530,  1087 


Z-0VV2,   V„l.  11,  pp.  003-1244.] 

McLean  v.  Copper,  3  Call.  (Va.) 

3(i7,  1109 

McLean  v.  Equitable,   etc.,   Co., 

100  Ind.   127,  S.  C.  50  Am.  R. 

779,  1029,  10.30 

McLean  v.  Ilugarin,  13  Johns. 184,  344 
McLean  v.  Lafayette,  3  McLean 

504,  1210 

McLean  v.  Presley,  56  Ala.  211,  495 
McLean  v.  State,  16  Ala.  672,  695 

McLean  v.  State,  8  Ileisk.  22,  189 

McLean  County   Precinct  v.  De- 
posit Bank,  81  Kv.  254,  212 
McLees  v.  Felt,  11  Ind.  218,            675 
McLemore  v.  Scales,  68  Miss.  47, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  844,  313 

McLeod  V.  Bertschv,  33  Wis.  176, 
•    S.  C.  14  Am.  R.  755,  1046 

McLeran  v.  Benton,  73  Cal.  329,  380 
McLimans  v.  City  of  Lancaster, 

57  Wis.  297,  177 

McLimans  v.   Citv  of  Lancaster, 

63  Wis.  596,        '  1092 

McLean   v.  Humphreys,   104  111. 

378,  294 

McLennan    v.   Prentice,  79  Wis. 

488,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  487,  1159 

McLughan    v.    Bovard,   4   Watts 

308,  11.36,  1138 

McMahon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

20  N.  Y.  463,  408 

McMahon  v.  O'Conner,  137  Mass. 

216,  1063 

McMahon     v.    Turney,    45   Mo. 

App.  103,  320 

McManus  v.  Com.,  91  Pa.  St.  57,  1159 
McMasters  v.  West  Chester,  etc., 

Co.,  25  Wend.  379,  1087 

McMath  V.  State,  55  Ga.  303,  822 

McMeans  v.  Cameron,  51  la.  691, 

304,  333 
Mc^Iechen  v.  McMechen,  17  W. 

Va.  683,  741 

McMertv    v.    ^lorrison,   62    Mo. 

140,     '  373 

McMickenv.  Amos, 4  Rand.  (Va.) 

134,  1103,  1106,  1134 

McMicken    v.     Perin,    20    How. 

133,  1187 

McMillan  v.  Baxlev,  112  N.  Car. 

578,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  S45.  10<i8 

IMcMillan  v.  .Tames.  105  111.  194,  596 
McMillan  v.  Nichols,  62  Ga.  36,  218 
Mc^Millan    v.    Richards,    12   Cal. 

467,  .347,  1203 

]\IcMinn  v.  Whelan,27  Cal.  300.  1069 
McMullen  v.   Raffertv,  89  N.  Y. 

456,  '  360,  384 

l\IcMullen  v.  State,  105  Ind.  334, 

S.  C.  4  N.  E.  R.  903,  446 


clxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
McMarrav's  Appeal,  101  Pa.  St. 

421,       ■  520 

McMurrin  v.  Rigby  (la.),  53  N. 

W.  K.  1079,  785 

McNab  V.  Bennett,  66  111.  157,  613 
McNabb  v.  Lookhart,  18  Ga.  495,  821 
^McNair  v.  Craig,  34  S.  Car.  9,  1135 
:McNairv   v.   Castleberry,  6  Tex. 

286,    "  190 

McNallv  V.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  137 

N.   Y".  389,  S.  C.  33   N.  E.  R. 

475,  1042 

McNamara    v.    Cabon,    21    Neb. 

.589,  183 

McNamara  v.  Carr,  84  Me.  299,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  856,  605,  606 

McNamara  v.  Dwver,  7  Paige  (N. 

Y. )  239,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  627,        477 
McNamara  V.Logan  (Ala.),  14  So. 

R.  175,  740 

McNatt  V.  Harmon,  3  Wash.  432, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  748,  1134 

McNaught  V.  McAllister,  93  Ind. 

114,  200 

McNear  v.  Bailey,  18  Me.  251,  572 
McNeil  V.  Magee,5  Mason(U.  S.) 

244,  598 

McNichol  V.  Pacific  Express  Co., 

12  Mo.  App.  407,  537 

McNichol  V.  United  States  Mer- 
cantile  Rep.    Agency,    74   Mo. 

457.  '  440 

McNiel  V.  Farneman,  37  Ind.  203, 

1162 
McNitt  V.  Turner,  16  Wall.  352,  324 
McNulty  V.  Battv,  10  How.  72, 

296,  338 
McNulty  V.  Walker,  64  Miss.  198, 

S.  C.  1  So.  R.  55,  652 

McNuttv.McNutt,  116  Ind.  545,  S. 

C.  2  L.  R.  A.  372,  504 

McPherson  v.  Beatrice,  12  Neb. 

202,  320 

McPherson  v.  Cox,  86  N.  Y.  472,  581 
McPherson  v.  Cunliff,  11  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  422,  274 

McPherson    v.   Foster,   4  Wash. 

(C.  C.)  45,  35 

McPherson  v.  Parker,  30  Cal.  455, 

S.  C.  59  Am.  Dec.  129,  .        1186 

McPherson  v.  Rathbone,  7  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  216,  506 

McPherson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  97  Mo.  253,  1033 

McPherson  v.  Snowden,  19   Md. 

197,  199 

McPike  V.  West,  71  Mo.  199,  484 

McQueen  v.  Middletown  Mfg.  Co., 
16  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  5,  440 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
McQueen  v.  State,  82  Ind.  72,        1075 
McQueen  v. Stewart, 7  Ind. 535,        1161 
McQuerry  v.Gilliland,89  Ky.434,     281 
McQuigan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  129  N.  Y.  50,  S.  C.  29  N.  E. 

E.  235,  810 

McReady  v.Rogers,l  Neb.124,         1193 
McRevnolds  V.  Burlington, etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  106  111.  152,  679 

iSIcReynolds    v.    Jones,    30    Ala. 

101,  1225 

McShane  v.  Gray,  13  la.  504,  601 

McSherry  v.  Penna.,  etc.,  Co.,  97 

Cal.  637,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  711, 

629,  634 
McSorlev  v.  Hughes,  58  Hun  360, 

S.  C.  12  N.  Y.  S.  179,  1133 

McTaggart  V.Harrison, 12  Kan.62,  213 
McTyier  v.  State,  91  Ga.  254,  S.  C. 

18  S.  E.  R.  140,  802 

McVeigh  v.United  States, 11  Wall. 

259,  118,  280 

INIcVichie  v.  Knight,  82  Wis.  137, 

S.  C.  51  N.  AV.  R.  1094,  528 

McVickar  v.  Greenleaf,  4  Rob.(N. 

Y.)  657,  515 

McVicker  v.  Beedy,31  Me.  314,  S. 

C.  50  Am.  Dec.  666,  303 

McWhirter  v.  Allen,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.649,S.C.20S.W.R.  1007,    1065 
Mabbett  v.  Vick,  53  Wis.  158,  429 

Mabin  V.  Webster   (Ind.),  35  N. 

E.  R. 194,  824 

Mabry  v.  Baxter,  11  Heisk.  682,  115 
Mack  V.  Brown,  73  111.  295,  439 

Mack  V.  Leedle,  78  la.    164,  S.  C. 

42  N.  W.  R.  636,  1094 

Mack  V.  People,  82  N.  Y.  235,  308 

Mackall  v.  Casilear,  137  U.  S.  556, 

S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  178,  570 

Mackay  v.    Bloodgood,  9  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  285,  583 

Mackereth  v.  Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  8  Exch.  149,  441 

Mackey  v.  Hyatt,  42  Mo.  App.443,  465 
Mackinley  v.  McGregor,  3  Whart. 

369,  S.  C.  31  Am.  Dec.  522, 

1027,  1034 
Macintosh  v.  Great  Western,  etc., 

Co.,  2  Mac.  &  G.  74,  407 

Macklotv.Davenport,17  Ia.379,  258 
Mackubin  v.Smith,5  Minn. 867,  446 
Macon  v.  Crump,  1  Call  575,  598 

MacRitchie  v.  Johnson,  49  Kan. 

321,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  477,  1054 

Madden  v.  Koester,  52  la.  692, 

781,  799 
Maddox    v.    PuUiam,    5    Blackf. 

205,  1195 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxx 


Vll 


^References  are  to  Pages,   Vol.  /,  pp 
Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whiteiu'ck, 

8  In.l.  217,  IL'O 

Madison,    I.  &   P.    R.    R.  Co.  v. 

Whitesel,  11  Ind.  55,  510 

Madis(jn  Ins.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  3  Ind. 

277,  581,  601 

Magaw    V.  Clark,  (>   Watts  (Pa.) 

528,  378 

Magee  v.  Carmack,  13  111.  289,  554 
Magee  v.  Com.,  4(3  Pa.  St.  358,  306 
Magee  v.  Magee,  37  Miss.  138,  551 
Magee  v.  North.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

78  Cal.  430,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  114,     550 
Magee  v.  Scott,  9  Cush.  148,  S.  C. 

55  Am.  Dec.  49,  394 

Maggard  v.  Van  Duvn,  36  Neb. 

862,  S.  C.  55  N.  W.R.  263,  1169 

Maggart  v.  Freeman,  27  Ind.  531,  511 
MagoHin  v.  M.  Pac.  Rv.  Co.,  102 

Mo.  540,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  76,       

Magruder  v.  Augusta,  86  Ga.  220, 

S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  587,  483 

Magruder  v.  Swann,  25  Md.  173,  237 
Maguire  v.  Maguire,  7  Dana  181,  290 
Maguire  v.  Price,  155  Pa.  St.  60,  S. 

C.  25  Atl.  R.  828,  1041 

Maguire    v.    Tyler,  40   Mo.    406, 

269,  1185 
Magwood  V.  Milne,  12  Rich.  (S. 

Car.)  474,  1042 

Mahaffev  v.  Byers,  151  Pa.  St.  92, 

S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  93,  1066 

Mahonev  v.  Ashton,  4  II.  &  M. 

(Md.)"210,  1103,  1106 

Mahoney  v.Middleton,  41  Cal.  41,  318 
Mahoney  v.  Robbins,  49  Ind.  146, 

390 
Mahorning  Bank's  Appeal,  32  Pa. 

St.  158,  1175 

Major  V.  Major,  2  Kan.  337,  1142 

Major  V.  State,  4  Sneed  (Tenn.) 

597,  660 

Main  v.  Ginthert,  92  Ind.  180,  495 
Main  v.  Oien,  47  Minn.  89,  S.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  523,  1079 

Maine  Wharf    v.  Proprietors,  85 

Me.  175,  S.  C.  27  Atl.  R.  93,         483 
Makepeace    v.    Lukens,   27    Ind. 

435,  186 

Malaney  v.  Hughes,  50  N.  J.  L. 

546,  1192 

Malby  v.  Osborne,  35  Minn.  387,  565 
Mallett  V.  Uncle  Sam,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Nev.  188,  216,  317 

Mallorv  v.  Dauber,  83  Ky.  239,  192 
Mallov  V.  Walker  Tp.,  77  Mich. 

448,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  695,  534 

Maling  v.  Crummev,  5  Wash.  222, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  600,  1079,  1220 

Malone  v.  Hopkins,  49  Ga.  221,     1167 
h 


l-fJ(rJ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  (J03-2244.] 
Malonev  v.  Dewev,  127  111.  .395,  S. 

C.  19  N.  E.  R.  848,  341 

Malonev  v.  Finnegan,  38   Minn. 

70,  S.  C.  36  N.  W.  R.  723,  488 

Maloney  v.    Hunt,  29  Mo.   Apn. 

379,  171 

Malone  v.  Samuel,  3  .\.  K.  Marsli. 

(Kv.)   350,  S.  C.   13  Am.  Dec. 

172,  435 

Maloney  v.  Traverse  (la.),  54  N. 

W.  R.  1.55,  019 

Maltimore  v.   Maltimore  ,  40  Pa. 

St.  151,  300 

Maltus  V.  Shields,  2  Mete.  (Ky.) 

553,  ,54.5 

Maman  v.  Smith,  8  R.  I.  192,  251 

Manchester  v.  Dodge,  57  Ind.  584, 

1138 
]\Ianchester  v.  Harrington,  10  N. 

Y.  164,  139 

Manclove  v.  Burger,  38  Ind.  211,     409 
Mandel  v.  Peet,  18  Ark.  236,  464 

Mandeville  v.  Mandeville,  35  Ga. 

243,  300,  34.5 

Mandeville  v.  Welch,  5  Wheat. 

277,  362 

Maner  v.  State,  8  Tex.  App.  361, 

667 
Maney,  Ex  parte,  38  Tex.  344,         142 
Manhattan  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Fran- 
cisco. 17  Wall.  672,  1063 
Manifold  v.  Jones,  117  Ind.  212, 

S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  124,  110 

Manigault   v.   Holmes,   1   Bailey 

Eq.  (S.  Car.)  283,  1185 

Manion  v.  Flynn,  39  Conn.  330,      6&5 
Manitowoc  Countv  v.  Sullivan,  51 

Wis.  115,  ■  1,56 

Manley  v.  Manlev,  4  Chandl.  96, 

287 
Manlove  v.  Thrift,  5  Munf.  493,  1184 
Mann  v.  Blount,  6.5  N.  Car.  99,  299 
Mann  v.  Buford.  3  Ala.  312,  S.  C. 

37  Am.  Dec.  691,  471 

Mann  v.  Clifton,  3  Blkf.  304,  1166 

Mann  v.  CJlover,  14  N.  J.  L.  195,     666 
Mann  v.  King,  18  Ves.  297,  1210 

Mann  v.  Kelsev,  71  Tex.  609,  S. 

C.  12  S.  W.  R.  43,  199 

]\Iann  v.  Martin,  14  Bush  763,  243 

Mann  v.  Palmer,  3  Abb.  Dec.  (N. 

Y.),  162.  375 

Mann  v.  Richardson,  66  111.  481,     582 
Mann  v.  Scott,  32  Ark,  593,  678 

Manning,  In  re,  76  Wis.  365,  S.  C. 

45  N.  W.  R.  26,  214,  235,  36-5 

Manning.  In  re,  139  U.  S.  504,        235 
Manning  v.  Burlington,  etc.,   R. 

R.  C<i.^  64  la.  240,   S.  C.  20  N. 

W.  R.  169.  719 


clxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pacjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Mannins  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co., 

Ki  L.  K.  A.  271.  368 

]\lannins  v.    Downing,  2  Johns. 

(N.  YT)  453,  635 

Manning  y.  Heady,  64  Wis.  630, 

S.  C.  25  K.  W.  R.  1,  446 

Manning  v.  Gasharie,  27  Ind.  399, 

508,  1090,  1097 
Manning  v.  Jamesson,  1  Cranch 

C.  C.  285,  623 

Manning  V.  Ins.   Co.,    100  U.    S. 

693,     ^  101 

Manning  v.   Manning,    1   Johns. 

Ch.527,  132 

Manning  v.  Weeks,  139  U.  S.  504, 

S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  624,  214 

Mannion  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  Co., 

13  N.  Y.  Supl.  759,  '  187 

Mannix  v.  State,  115  Ind.  245,  148,  636 
Manny  v.Griswold,  21  Minn.506,  1093 
Manny  v.  Harris,  2  Johns.  (N.  Y".) 

24,  S.  C.  3  Am.  Dec.  386,  401 

ISIansell  v.  Reg.,  8  El.  &  B.  54,  667 
Mansfield  v.  Corbin,  4  Cush.  213,  1059 
Mansfield  v.  Mclntvre,  10   Ohio 

28,  '  287 

Mansfield  v.  New  England,  etc., 

Co.,  58  Me.  35,  470 

Mansfield  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

114  N.  Y.  331,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R. 

735,  559 

Mansfield  v.  Shipp,  128  Ind.  55,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  427,  454 

Mansfield  &  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Veeder, 

17  Ohio  385,  408 

Mansfield  C.  &  L.  M.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Swan,  111  U.  S.  379,  S.  C.  4  Sup. 

Ct.  R. 510,  342,  609, 1214 

Manson  v.  Lancev,  84  Me.  380,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  880,  382 

Mansue   v.  Churchman,  84   Ind. 

573,  1168 

Manufacturers'  Bank  v.  Kiersted, 

6  Daly  160,  1178 

Manufacturers'  Bank  v.  Perry,  144 

Mass.  313,  '  367 

Manufacturers,  etc.,  Co.  y.   Dor- 

gan,  58  Fed.  Rep.  945,  741 

Manufacturing  Co.  y.  Donahoe,  49 

Ark.  318,  S.  C.  5  S.  W.  R.  342,     154 
Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Worster,  23 

N.  H.  462,  282 

Manville  v.  Parks,  7  Col.  128, 

1197,  1198 
Manwell  v.  Briggs,  17  Vt.  176,  1067 
Mapes  y.  People,'  60  111.  523,  299 

Mapstrick  v.  Ramge,  9  Neb.  390,  153 
Marble    v.    McKenney,    60    Me. 

332  492 

Marble  v.  Mellen,  145  Mass.  342,     1056 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Marble  v.  AValters,  19  Mo.  App. 

134,  820 

Marboughv.  Smith,  11  Kan.  554,    1165 
Marbury   y.    Madison,  1   Cranch 

137,    '  123,  124,  248 

March  y.  Allabough,  103  Pa.  St. 

335,  538 

March  y.  Harrell,  1  Jones  L.  (N. 

Car.)  329,  806 

March  y.  State,  44  Tex.  64,  251 

Marchand  v.  Coffee,  23  La.  Ann. 

442,  714 

INIarcum  v.  Powers    (Ky.),  9  S. 

W.  R.  255,  '  304 

Marcum  y.  Smith,  26   Mo.  App. 

460,  1023 

Marcy  y.  Barnes,  16  Gray  161,  S. 

C.  77  Am.  Dec.  405,  35 

Maretzek  v.  Cauldwell,  2  Abb.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  407,  657 

Margar  y.  Emerich,  4  Cal.  508,      1188 
Mariani  y.  Dougherty,  46  Cal.  26, 

1161 
Marie  v.  Garrison,  13  Abb.  N.  C. 

(N.Y.)210,  1211 

Marine  Bank  v.  Fiske,  71  N.  Y. 

353,  396 

Marine    Bank    y.     International 

Bank,  9  Wis.  57,  412 

Marine,  etc.,  Co.  y.   Herreshoff, 

etc.,  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  822,     1236,  1239 
Marine   Ins.    Co.  y.   Hodgson,  6 

Cranch  206,  162 

Marine    Ins.     Co.    y.     Young,  5 

Cranch  187,  1159 

Marion  y.  State,  20  Neb.  233,  S.  C. 

29  N.  W.  Rep.  911,  783,  803 

Mark  y.  State,  101  Ind.  353,  1160 

Markell  y.  Matthews,  3  Col.  App. 

49,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  176,  1133 

Markham  y.  Howell,  33  Ga.  508,     485 
Markland  y.  Albes,  81  Ala.  433, 

S.  C.  2  So.  R.  123,  1237 

Markland  y.  McDaniel,  51  Kan. 

350,  S.  C.  20  L.  R.  A.  96,  1066 

Markle  y.  Akron,  14  Ohio  509,        277 
Markley  y.  Amos,  8  Rich  L.  (S. 

Car.)  468,  582 

Markoyer  y.  Krauss,  32  Ind.  294, 

291,  294 
Markson  v.  Hanev,  47  Ind.  31,  1158 
Marks  y.  Boone,  24  Fla.  177,  S  .  C. 

4  So.  R.  532,  555 

Marks  y.  King,  64  N.  Y.  628,  721 

Marks  y.  Trustees,  37  Ind.  155,       121 
Markward  y.  Doriat,  21  Ohio  St. 

637,  1162 

Marley  v.  Hornaday,  69  Ind.  106, 

1243 
Marley  y.  Noblett,  42  Ind.  85,        1166 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


clxxix 


[lirferrncfs  are  to  Paries,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Marnine  v.  Murpliy,  H  Ind.  272,      4()G 
Maroniu'  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Club,  63 

Hun  (i;W,  1211 

Maniueze  v.  Sontheimer,  59  Miss. 

48U,  4(ir) 

Marr  v.  Johnson,  9  Yerg.  1,  11(10 

Marrero  v.  Nunez,  8  La.  Ann.  54,     619 
Marrow  v.  Brinkk'v,  85  Va.  55,  S. 

C.  6  S.  E.  R.  ()05,"  266 

Marsalis  v.  I'attun,  83  Tex.  521,  S. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  1070,  1081 

Marseilles  v.  Kenton,  17  Pa.  St. 

238,  586 

Marsh  v.  Bast,  41  Mo.  493,  1200 

Marsh  v.  Brown,  57  N.  H.  173,        644 
Marsh  v.  Coppock,  9  Car.  &   P. 

480,  659 

Marsh  v.  Cramer,  16  Col.  331,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  169,  540 

Marsh  v.  Curtis,  71  Ind.  377,  596 

Marsh  v.  Hand,  35  Md.  123,  503 

Marsh  V.  Ilulbert,  4  McLean  (U. 

8.  C.  C.)  364,  620 

Marsh  v.  Nichols,  140  U.  S.  344,      304 
Marsh  v.  Oliver,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  259, 

376 
Marsh  v.  Packer,  20  Vt.  198,  585,  594 
Marsh  v.  Pier,  4  Rawle  273,  S.  C. 

26  Am.  Dec.  131,  .301,  1177 

Marsh  v.Terrell,63  Ind.  363,   1164,  1165 
Marshall    v.    American    Express 

Co.,  7  Wis.  1,  669 

Marshall  v.  Blackshire,  44  la.  475, 

1088 
Marshall  v.  Dalliber,  5  Conn.  480, 

382 
Marshall  v.  Davies,  78  N.  Y.  414, 

704,  705 
Marshall  v.    Ilarnev  Peak,   etc., 
Co.  (S.  Dak.),  47  iS[.  AV.  R.  290, 

543,  558 
Marshall  v.  Hubbard,  117  U.  S. 
415,    S.    C.   6   Sup.   Ct.  R.  806, 

1050,  1053 
Marshall  v.  Moore,  36  111.  321,  565 
Marshall  v.  Ravisies,  22  Fla.  583, 

155 
Marshall  v.  Schricker,  63  Mo.  308, 

525 
Marshall  v.  State,  123  Ind.  128,  1237 
Marshall   v.  State.  5   Tex.    App. 

273,  706 

Marshall  v.  Turnbull,  32  Fed.  R. 

124,  485 

Marston.  In  re,  79  Me.  25,  S.  C.  3 

N.  E.  R.  367,  224 

Martin,  Ex  parte,  L.   R.  4  Q.   B. 

Div.  212.  298 

Martin,  Ex  jnirte.  46  Fed.  R.  482,      342 
Martin,  Matter  of,  2  Paine  348,      1131 


l-aO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00.3-1244.] 
Martin   v.  Aultman,  80  Wis.   150, 

S.  C.  49  N.  \V.  R.  749,  456 

Martin  v.  Bank,  20  Ark.  636, 

191,  1244 
Martin  v.  Burns,  so  Tex.  676,  S. 

C.  16  S.  W.   R.  1072,  329 

Martin  v.  California,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  94  Cal.  326,  S.  C.  29  Pac. 
R.  645,  557 

Martin  v.  Capital  Ins.  Co.  (la.), 

52  N.  W.  R.  534,  206 

:\Iartin  v.  Carron,  26  N.  .1.  L.  228,  324 
Martin  v.  Central  lowaR.R.  Co., 

59  la.  411,  1093 

Martin  v.  Chauvin,  7  Mo.  277,  393 
Martin  v.  Elden,  32  Ohio  St.  282, 

712,  784 
Martin  v.  Grav,  142  U.  S.  236,  456 
Martin  v.  Ilal'l,  26  Mo.  .386,  178 

Martin  v.  Harrison,  50  Ind.  270, 

1156,  1210 
Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  202 
^Martin  v.Hunter'sLessee,l  Wheat. 

304,  247 

Martin  v.  Inghara,38  Kan.  641,  S. 

C.  17  Pac.  R.  162,  170 

Martin  v.  Ins.  Co.,  44  N.  J.  L.  485,  385 
Martin  v.  Lake,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  475, 

1167 
Martin  V.  Lettv,  18  B.  Mon.  (Kv.) 

573,  ■  ■       380 

Martin  v.  Martin,  74  Ind.  207,  1132 
Martin  v.  :\Iartin,  118  Ind.  227,  373 
Martin  v.  Morelock,   32  111.  485, 

1159 
Martin   v.   Mott,   12  Wheat.   19, 

165,  323 
Martin  v.  Noble,  29  Ind.  216,  459 

jNIartin  v.  Ohio  River  R.  R.  Co., 
37  W.  Va.  349,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R. 
589,  1115 

Martin  v.  Raffin,  21  N.  Y.  S.  1043, 

437 
Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  53 
Ark  250,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  765, 

188,  1243 
Martin  v.  State,  63  Miss.  505,  S. 

C.  56  Am.  R.  812.  820 

Martin  v.  State,  79  Wis.  165,  S.  C. 

48N.  W.R.I  19,  631,640 

Martin  v.  Suber  (S.  Car.),  18  S.E. 

R. 125,  676 

Martin  v.  Tarver,  43  Miss.  517,  195 
Martin  v.  Thompson, 3  Bibb  (Kv.) 

252,  ■       466 

IMartin  v.  Thrasher,  40  Vt.  460,  [583 
Martin  v.  Tidwell,  36  (ia.  332,  301 

Martin  v.  Whistler,  62  la.  416,        399 
Martin  v.  Williams,  13  Johns. (N. 
Y.)  2()4,  595,  598 


clxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Martin  v.  Williams,  97  Am.  Dec. 

4o6,  505 

[Martin  v.  Windsor  Hotel  Co.,  70 

N.Y.lOl,  162 

Martindale  v.  Price,  14  Ind.  115,    1172 
Martiueau  v.  Steele,  14  Wis.  295, 

1160 
Martinsburg,  etc.,R.Co.  v.  March, 

114  U.  S.  549,  407 

jNIartinton   v.   Fairbanks,  112  U. 

S.  070,  S.  C.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  321,      1140 
Martyr  v.  Lawrence,  2  De  G.  J.  & 

S.  261,  478 

Marvel  v.  Huston,  2  Harr.  (Del.) 

340,  198 

Marx  V.  Hilsendegen,  46   Mich. 

336,  797 

Marx  V.  Leinkauff,  93  Ala.  453,  S. 

C. 9  So.  R.  818,  806 

Marx  V.  Schwartz,  14  Ore.  177,  S. 

C.  12  Pac.  R.  253,  1067 

Marye  v.  Strouse,  6  Sawy.  204,      1236 
Maryland  Ins.  Co.  v.    Ruden,   6 

Cranch  338,  1105 

Marysville  v.  Buchanan,    3   Cal. 

212,  347 

Mason  v.  Abbott,  83  111.  445,  1195 

Mason  v.  Anderson,  3  T.  B.  Mon. 

(Kv.)  293,  622 

Mason  v.  Bridge,  14  Me.  468,  573 

Mason  v.  Brown,  6  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)  481,  628 

Mason  v.  Croom,  24  Ga.  211,  676 

Mason  v.  Daly,  117  Mass.  403,       1186 
Mason  &  T.Drainage  Dist.  v.  Grif- 
fin, 134  111.  330,  S.  C.  25  N.  E. 
R.  995,  609 

Mason   v.   Eldred,   6    Wall.   231, 

443, 1195 
Mason  v.  Hill,  3  Barn.  &  Ad.  304, 

S.  C.  5  Barn.    &  Ad.  1,  392 

Mason  v.  Johnson,  24  111.  159,  S. 

C.  76  Am.  Dec.  740,  381 

Mason  v.  Messenger,  17  la.  261, 

425,  444 
Mason  v.  N.Y.,etc.,Co.,  52  Me.  82,  200 
Mason  v.  Palmerton,  2  Ind.  117, 

1163,  1169 
Mason  v.  Prendergrast,  120  N.  Y. 

536,  519 

Mason  v.  State,  15 Tex.  App.  534,  658 
Mason  v.  Strieker,  37  Ga.  262,  302 
Mason  v.  Weston,  29  Ind.  561,  515 
Mason  v.  W'oerner,  18  Mo.  566,  116 
Massachusetts,  etc..  Bank  v.  Bul- 
lock, 120  Mass.  86,  199 
Massey  v.  Colville,  45  N.  J.  L.  119, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  R.  754,  457 

Massie  v.  Commonwealth,  90  Ky. 
485,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  419,  308 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Massie  v.  Watts,  6  Cranch    148, 

281,  283,  1128 
Masten  v.  Devo,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

424,  552 

Masterson  v.  Kid  well,  2   Cranch 

C.  C.  669,  586 

Masterson  v.    McKelsey    (Tex.), 

21  S.  W.  R.  1005,  1136 

Masterton  v.  Matthews,  60  Ala. 

260,  144 

Mastin  v.  Branham,  86  Mo.  643,      382 
Mastin  v.  Gray,  19  Kan.  458,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  R.  149,  326,  606 

Mastin  v.  Halley,  61  Mo.  196,  478 

Mastin  v.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

634,  539 

Masurv  v.  Whiton,  111  N.  Y.  679, 

S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  638,  574,  599 

Matchett  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  132  Ind.  334,  S.C.31N.E. 
R.  792,  1097 

Mateer  v.  Brown,  1  Cal.  221, 

1041,  1042 
Mateer  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 
105  Mo.  320,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R. 
839,  569 

Mather  v.  Scoles,  35  Ind.  1,  394 

Matherson  v.  Grant,  2  How.  (U. 

S.)  263,  162 

Mathes  v.  Bennett,  21  N.  H.  204, 

363 
Matheson  v.  Grant,  2  How.  (U. 

S.)  263,  1120 

Mathews'  Adm'r  v.    Forniss,   91 

Ala.  157,  S.  C.  8  So.  Rep.  661,      679 
Mathews   v.  Mathews,  1    Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  669,  602 

Mathews  v.  Miller,  25  W.  Va.  817, 

578,  595 
Mathews  v.  Phelp,  61  Mich.  327, 

S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  581,  413 

Mathews  v.  Taffe,  44  Minn.  400, 

1046 
Mathias  v.  Sellers,  86  Pa.  St.  486, 

1209 
Mathie  v.  Mcintosh,  40  Wis.  120,  255 
Mathis  V.  Clark,  2  Mill.  (S.  Car.) 

456,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  688,  473 

Mathis  V.  Thomas,  101  Ind.  119,     404 
Matilda    v.    Crenshaw,    4    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  299,  381 

Matlock  V.  Fry,  15  Ind.  483,  637 

Matson  v.  Trower,  Ryan  &  M.  17,  594 
Matter  of  Estate  of  Altemus,32  La. 

Ann.  364,  314 

Matter  of  Canal  and  Walker  Sts., 

12N.Y.  406,  298 

Matter  of  Christein,  11  Jones  & 

Snen.  (N.Y.)523,  180 

Matter  of  Cooper,  93  N.  Y.  507,       152 


TAIJLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxi 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  ]'ul.  I,  pp 
Matter  of  Field,  131  N.  Y.  184,        447 
Matter  of  the  Graduates,  11  Abb. 

Pr.  301,  2% 

Matter  of  Griffin,  25  Tex.  (Supl.), 

623  235 

Matter  of  Hubbard,  82  N.  Y.  90,  290 
Matter  of  Kendrick,  107  N.  Y.  104,  383 
Matter  of  Martin,  2  Paine  348,  1131 
Matter  of  i"\Iorgan,  104  N.  Y.  74,  S. 

C.  9  N.  E.  K.  8()1,  720 

Matter  of  Neilley,  95  N.  Y.  390,  376 
Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  35 

Hun  575,  332 

Matter  of  Oath  Before  Justices,  12 

Coke  130,  298 

Matter  of  Richardson,  2  Sto.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  571,  379 

Matter  of  Ryers,  72  N.  Y.  1,  S.  C. 

23  Am.  R."  88,  225 

Matter  of  the  Village  of  Middle- 
town,  82  N. Y.  196,  425 
Matter  of    Washington  Avenue, 

69  Pa.  St.  352,  S.  C.  8  Am.  R. 

255,  108 

Matter  of  Welman,  20  Vt.  653,  379 
Matter  of  Will  of  \Varfield,  In  re, 

22  Cal.  51,  S.  C.  83  Am.  Dec. 

49,  263 

Matter  of  Williams,  4  Denio  (N. 

Y.)  194,  595 

Matter  of  Campbell,  71  Ind.  512, 

1178 
Matteson  v.  Noves,  25  111.  591,  503 
Matteson  v.  Smith,  37  Wis.  333,  438 
Matthews  v.  Coalter,  9  Mo.  705,  532 
Matthews  v.  Densmore,  43  Mich. 

461,  465 

Matthews  v.  Durvee,  4  Keyes  (N. 

Y.)  525,  "  1150 

Matthews  v.  Houghton,  11    Me. 

377,  184,  1189 

Matthews  v.  Lindsav,  20  Fla.  962, 

402 
:Matthews  v.  Storey,  54  Ind.  417,  1068 
Matthews  v.   Superior  Court,  68 

Cal.  638,  237 

Mattingly  v.  Corbit,  7    B.   Men. 

37(!,  280 

Mattingly  v.  Darwin,  23  111.  56,  161 
Mattingly  v.  Moranville,    11   Mo. 

604,      "  1236 

Mattingly  y.  Paul.  88  Ind.  95,  668 

^lattocks   V.    Baker,    2    Fed.    R. 

455,  315 

Mattocks    y.    Chad  wick.    71    Me. 

313,  383 

Mattocks  v.Tremain,  3  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  75,  476,  477 

Mattoon,  City  of,  v.  Fallin,113Ill. 

249,  ■  1052 


.  l-f;OL>,  Vol.  11,  pp.  60S-7244.] 
Mattson  v.  Borgeson,  24  111.  App. 

79,  1116 

Maughan  v.  Burns,  54  Vt.  316,  S. 

C.  23  At).  R.  583,  179 

Maun.l  V.  lx)eb,  87  Ala.  374,  S.  C. 

6  So.  R.  376.  624 

Maunder,  In  re,  49  L.  T.  R.  535,  601 
Mauran  v.  Smith,  8  R.  I.  192,  170 

Maurice  y.  Worden,  54  Md.  233, 

715,  716,  722 
Maury  y.    Post,  55  Hun    (N.  Y.) 

454  598 

Mau.s'v.  Bome,  123  Ind.  522,  S.  C. 

24  N.  E.  R.  .345,  529 

Mans  V.  Montgomery,  U  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  329,  1027 

Maverick  v.  Maury,  79  Tex.  435, 

S.  C.  15  S.  W.  Rep.  686,  541 

Mawhinnev  y.Doane,40  Kan.676,  368 
Maxam  v.  Wood,  4  Blackf.  297,  149 
^laxwell's    Ex'rs   v.    Wilkinson, 

113  U.  S.  656,  S.  C.  5  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  691,  738 

Maxwell  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  286,  441 

Maxwell  v.  Boyne,  36  Ind.  120,  1092 
Maxwell  v.  Campbell,  8  Ohio  St. 

265,  1199 

May  V.  Baker,  15  111.  89,  462 

May  v.  Board,  30  Fed.  R.  250,  318 
May  v.  Breed,  7  Cush.  15,  S.  C. 

54  Am.  Dec.  700,  285 

May  v.  Hanson,  5  Cal.  360,  1043 

May  V.  Hoover,  112  Ind.  455,  664 

May  V.  Marks,  74  Ala.  249,  324 

May  v.  Miller,  59  Vt.  577,  600 

May  v.  Printup,  59  Ga.  129,  196 

May  v.  School  Dist.,  22  Neb.  205, 

S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  266,  366 

May  v.  Vann,  15  Fla.  553,  364 

Mavberry  v.  Willoughby,  5  Neb. 

368,      ■  384 

Mayer  v.  Appel,  13  111.  App.  87,  801 
Slaver  y.  Faulkrod,  4  Wash.  C. 

C.  503,  567 

Mayes  v.  Goldsmith,  58  Ind.  94,  529 
IVIavfleld  y.  Cotton.  37  Tex.  229,  822 
I^Iayfield  v.  State,  40  Tex.  289.  1181 
Mavhew    v.    Durfee,    138    Mass. 

54S.  1139 

:\Iayhew  v.  Snell,  33  ^lich.  182,  183 
:\Iaynard  v.  Bond.  67  :\Io.  315,  195 
]Mavnard   v.    Fre<lerick,    7   Cush. 

247,  579,  591 ,  593,  601 

INIavnard  v.  Hill.  125  U.S.  190,  S. 

C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  723,  288 

:Mavnard  v.  Ponder,  75  Ga.  664,  1194 
^laVnard  v.  Shorb,  85  Ind. 501,  707 
:\Ia\nes   v.   Atwater,   88  Pa.   St. 

49(),  1042 


clxxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\_Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Maynes  v.  Moore,  Itj  Ind.  110,        212 
Mayor  v.  Butler,  1  Barb.  (.N.Y.) 

325,  594 

Mavor  of  Devises  v.  Clark,  3  Ad. 

c<:"  El.  506,  1088 

jMavor,  etc.,  v.  Curtiss,  1  Clarke 

336,  480 

Mayor  v.  Bolton,  1  Bos.  &  P.  40,     430 
Mavor  v.  Butler,  1  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

325,  597 

Mayo  V.  Gardner,  4  Jones  359,        584 
Mavo  V.  Stoneum,  2  Ala.  390,  144 

Mavor  of  Columbus  v.  Goetchius, 

7"Ga.  139,  654 

Mavor  v.  Horn,  26  Md.  194,  117 

MaVor  v.  Horton,  38  N.  J.  L.  88,     472 
Mayor,  etc.,  v.  Sands,  105  N.  Y. 

210,  298 

Mayor,  etc.,  v.   Schermerhorn,  1 

N. Y.  423,  1181 

Mayor  v.  State,  15  Md.  376,  203 

Mavor  of   Hudson  v.  Tborne,   7 

Paige  Ch.  (N.Y.)  261,  545 

Mavs  V.  Dooley,  59  Ind.  287,  255 

Mays  V.  Foster,  26  Kan.  518, 

104,  1096,  1148 
Mavs  V.  Fritton,  20  Wall.  413,       1206 
Mays  v.  Hassell,  4  Stew.  &  Port. 
(Ala.)   222,  S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec. 
750,  191 

Mavs  v.  Rose,  1   Freeman's  Ch. 

(Miss.)  703,  194,  196 

Meachamv  Moore,  59  Miss.  561,  707 
Mead  v.  Altgeld,  136  HI.  298,  S. 

C.  26N.E.  R.  388,  552 

Mead  v.  Merritt,  2  Paige  402,  280 

Mead  v.  Parker,  111  N.  Y.  259, 

554,  1105 
Meadowcroft  v.   Agnew,   89  111. 

469,  473 

Meagher  v.  Storey  Co.,  5  Nev. 

944  145,  216 

Mean's  v.  Means,  42  111.  50,  190,  192 
Meara  v.  Holbrook.  20  Ohio  St. 

137,  378 

Meaux  v.  Meaux,  81  Ky.  475,  1165 
Meaux V.Whitehall,  8  Bradw.  173,  663 
Mechanics'   Bank   v.  Nat.  Bank, 

36  Md.  5,  531 

Mechanics'    Bank    v.   Smith,   19 

.Johns.  (N.  Y.)  115,  662,  663 

Mechanics'    Bank  v.  Withers,  6 

AVheat.  106,  .      152 

Mechanics'  Build.  Assn.  v.  Whit- 
acre,  92  Ind.  547,  373 
Mechelke  v.  Bramer,  59  Wis.  57, 

S.  C.  17  N.  W.  R.  682,  516,  706 

Medler  v.  State,  26  Ind.  171,  1231 

Medlock  v.  Cogburn,  1  Rich.  Eq. 
477,  289 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.-] 
Medway  v.  Needham,16  Mass. 157,  292 
Meehan  v.  Edwards,  92  Ky.  574, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  519,  304 

Meeker  v.  Meeker,  74  la.  352,  S. 

C.  37  N.  W.  R.  773,  739,  741 

Meekerv.Potter,  5N.  J.L.586,  653 
Meeker  v.  Shanks,  112  Ind.  207,  1147 
Meeker    v.    Van  Rensselaer,    15 

Wend.  397,  183,  1203 

Meeks  v.  State,  57  Ga.  329,  665 

Meeks  v.  Vassault,  3  Saw.  (C.  C.) 

206,  380 

Mehlin  V.  Ice,  56  Fed.  R.  12,  610 

Meier  v.  Kansas  Pacific  R.  Co.,  5 

Dill.  (U.S.C.  C.)  476,  194 

Meier  v.  Meier,  105  Mo.  411,  S.C. 

16  S.  W.  R.  223,  412 

Meier  v.  Morgan,  82  Wis.  289,  S. 
C.  33  Am.  St.  R.  39,  S.  C.  52  N. 
W.  R.  174,  697,  699,  1077,  1219 

Meiners  v.  Loeb,  64  Wis.  343,  627,  630 
Meinert  v.  Snow,  2  Idaho  851,  S. 

C.  27  Pac. R.  677,  1239 

Meinhard  v.  Youngblood,  37  S. 
Car.  231,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  950, 

454,  610 
Meixwell  v.  Kirkpatrick,  29  Kan. 

679,  454 

Mellen  v.  Iron  Works,  131  U.  S. 
352,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  781, 

268,  275,  444 
Melendy  v.  Barbour,  78  Va.  544,  410 
Mellish  v.  Raw^don,  9  Bing.  416,  555 
Mellish  v.  Richardson,  7  B.  &  C. 

819,  162 

Melson  v.  Dickson,  63  Ga.  682,  S. 

C.  36  Am.  R.  128,  645,  656,  662 

Melville  v.  Brown,  15  Mass.  82,  365 
Melvin  v.  Proprietors  of  Locks,  5 

Met.  (Mass.)  15,  371 

Memphis  v.  Brown,  94  U.  S.  715,  184 
Memphis  v.Laski,9  Heisk.  (Tenn. ) 

511,  S.  C.  24  Am.  R.  327,  471 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chas- 

tine,  54  Miss.  503,  1055 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gra- 
ham, 94  Ala.  545,  10  So.  R.  283,   545 
Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Maples,  63 

Ala.  601,  512,514 

Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCool,  83 

Ind.  .392,  803 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
son, 85  Tenn.  627,  S.  C.  4  Am. 
St.  R.  776,  502 

Memi)his,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Scruggs,  50 

Miss.  284,  578,  581,  587,  593 

Menard  v.  Scudder,  7  La.   Ann. 

385,  ,    413 

Mendenhall  v.  Treadway,  44  Ind. 
431,  1231 


TAl;l,K    OK    (ASKS. 


Cl 


XXXIU 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Menges  v.  Dentler,  9  Casey  41)5,      117 
Menges  v.  Krick,  7.S  Pu.  St.  187,      ::;79 
Mentzv.  Arinenia  Ins.  Co.,  79  Pa. 

St.  478,  S.  C.  21  Am.  R.  80,  589 

Mentz  V.  Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504,  S. 

C.  15  N.  E.  R.  541,        289,  324, 1130 
Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.  v.  ^Missouri, 

etc.,  Co.,  1  L.  R.  A.  397,  495 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Railroad, 

16  Blatchf.  324,  277 

Mercer  County  v.  Hacket,  1  Wall. 

83,  105 

Mercer  v.  Selden,  1  How.  (U.  S.) 

37,  380 

Mercer  v.  Whall,  5  Ad.  &  El.  (N. 

S.)  447,  669,  675 

Merchants'  Bank   v.    First    Nat. 

Bank,  4  Hughes  (U.S.C.C.)  1,      364 
Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Kent,  43 

Mich.  292,  195 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Rawls,  7  Ga. 

191,  S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec.  394,         1048 
Merchants'  Bank  v.  Schulenberg, 

54  :Mich.  49,  1046 

Merchants'  Bank  v.Schulenburg, 

48  Mich.  102,  S.  C.  19  N.  AV.  R. 

741,  1046 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  State  Bank, 

10  Wall.  604,  1050 

Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Joesting, 

89  111.  152,  1210,  1231 

Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  162,  196 

Merchants'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  5 

Wall.  541,  338 

Mercier  v.  Mercier,  43  Ga.  323, 

1041,  1054 
Meredith  Savings  Bank  v.  Simp- 
son, 22  Kan.  414,  410 
Mergentheim   v.    State.   107  Ind, 

567,  S.  C.  8  N.  E.  R.  568,  697 

Meridith  v.  Lackey,  14  Ind.  529,    1143 
Merkee  v.  City  of  Rochester,  13 

Hun  157,  342 

Mermorv  v.  Niepert,  33  111.  App. 

131,     ■  152 

Meronev  v,  Atlanta,  etc.,  Assn., 

112  n:  Car.  842,  S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R. 

637,  480 

Mersereau  v.  Pearsall,  6  IIow.  Pr. 

293,  1163 

Mershon  v.  State,  44  Ind.  598,        640 
Mersmierv.  .McCrarv(Mo.),  21  S. 

AV.  R.  17,  ■  518 

Meranda  v.  Spurlin.  100  Ind.  380, 

1158 
Merrell  v.  Camj)bell,  49  AVis.  535, 

S.  C.  35  Am,  R.  785,  471 

Merriam    v.    Uassam,    14   Allen 

516,  372 


,  l-HO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  00S-I244.'\ 
Merriam  v.  Lynch,  53  Wis.  82,         396 
Merriam  v.  State,  3  Lea  (Tenn.) 

393,  S03 

Merrill  v.  Hilliard,  .59  N.  H.  481, 

541,  552 
Merrill  v.  Lake,  16  (Jhio  373,  256 

Merrill  v.  Montgomery,  25  Mich. 

73,  446 

Merrill  v.  Narv,  10  Allen  (Mass.) 

416,  ■  1077 

Merrill  v.  Petty,  16  Wall.  338,  255 

INIerriman  v.  Morgan,  7  Ore.  68,  126 
Merritt,  In  re,  5  Paige,  125,  409 

Merritt  v.  Cobb,  17  Ind.  314, 

1212,  1223 
Merritt  v.  Clow,  2  Tex.  582,  6a5 

Merritt  v.  Gibson,  129  Ind.  155,  S. 

C.  15  L.  R.  A.  277,  496 

Merritt  v.  Lyon,  16  Wend.  405, 

193  409 
Merritt  v.  Merritt,  11  111.  565, 

573,  596 
Merritt  v.  Merritt,  16  AA'end.  (N. 

Y.)  405,  493 

Merritt  v.  Swimlev.  82  A'a.  433,  S. 

C.  3  Am.  St.  R.'ll5,  290 

Merritt  v.  Thompson,   27  N.   Y. 

225,  574,  599 

IVIerritt  v.  AA'hite,  37  Miss.  438,        456 
Merriwether  v.   Bank,   Dud.    (S. 
-^- Car.)  36,  440 

Mescall  v.  Tully,  91  Ind.  96,  71 

Meserole  v.  Furman,  38  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  355,  1017 

Meserve  v.  Andrews,  104  Mass. 

360,  1139 

Messenger  V.  Broom,  1  Pin.  (AVis.) 

630,  160 

Messenger  v.  Fourth  Nat.  Bank, 

6  Dalv  (N.  Y.)  190,  S.  C.  48  How. 

Pr.  542,  laoO 

Messenger  v.  Holmes,  12  AVend. 

(N.  YO  203,  627 

jNIessenger  V.  Kintner.  4  Binn.97,  319 
Messervev   v.    Beckwith,    41    111. 

452,       '  431,4.34 

:Messick  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,   128 

Ind.  81,  112 

INIessner  v.  People.  45  N.  Y.  1.  30 

:Metcalf  V.  ^IcLausrhlin.  122  Mass. 

84,  393 

IMetcalf  V.  Watertown,  128  U.  S. 

'>S6,  113,609 

]\Iets:er,  In  re.  5  IIow.  (U.  S.)  176,  256 
Metier  v.  Metier,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  270,  485 
Metropolitan  Nat.  Bank  v.  Ro^er.^, 

3  V.  S.  App.  406,  S.  C.  53  Fed.  R. 

776.  1141 

Metropolitan  Rv.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 

L.  R.  3  App.  Cas.  193,  546,  1053 


clxxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson, 
itl  Ga.466,S.  C.16S.E.  R.49,     1064 

Metropolitan  St.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 90  Ga.  500,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R. 
49,  696 

Mettler  v.  Moore,  1  Blackf.  342,      389 

Metz  V.  State  Bank,  7  Neb.  165,     1190 

Metzger  v.  Herman,  12  N.  Y. 
Weekly  Dig.  181,  1042 

Metzler  v.  James,  12  Col.  322,  S. 
C.  19  Pac.  R.  885,  16,  111,  1130 

Meuly  V.  State,  26  Tex.  App.  274, 
S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  R.  477,  630 

Mexican  Cent.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pinkey, 
149  U.  S.  194,  S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  859,  614 

Mever  v.  Berlandi,  1  L.  R.  A.  777, 

s".  c.  40  X.  ^y.  r.  513,  170 

Meyer  v.  Cullen,  54  N.  Y.  392,  707 
Mever  v.  Houck,  85  la.  319,  S.  C. 

52  X.  W.  R.  235,  1053 

Meyer  v.  Johnston,  53  Ala.  237,  495 
Meyer  v.  Kalkmann,  6  Cal.  582,  337 
Meyer  v.  Lewis,  43  Mo.  App.  417, 

720 
Mever  v.  McLean,  1  Johns.  509,  1157 
]\Iever  v.  Muscatine,  1  Wall.  384,  165 
Mever  v.  Sefton,  2  Starkie  244,  504 
Meyer  v.  State,  19  Ark.  156,  660 

Meyer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  3  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  37,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R. 

995,  610 

Meyers  v.  Field,  37  Mo.  434,  269 

MeVncke  v.  State,  68  Ind.  401, 

802,  803,  805 
Mevsenberg  v.  Engelke,  18  Mo. 

App.  346,  552 

Mezchen  v.  More,  54  Wis.  214,  4.33 
Michaels  v.  Hine,  3  Green  (la.) 

470,  248 

Michan  v.  Wyatt,  21  Ala.  813,  381 
Michelstetter  v.  Weiner,  82  Wis. 

298,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  435,  540 

Michen  v.  McCoy,  3  Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)  501,  614,  615 

Mich.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1  111.  App.  399,      471 
Michigan   Central    R.   R.   Co.  v. 

Gougar,  55  111.  503,  581 

Michigan,  etc..  Bank  v.  Eldred, 

143  U.  S.  293,  1243 

Michigan,    etc.,    Co.    v.   McDon- 

ough,  21  Mich.  165,  S.  C.  4  Am. 

Rep.  466,  70 

Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Naugle,  130 

Ind.' 79,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  .393,      571 
Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  North  Indi- 
ana,'etc.,  Co.,  3  Ind.  239,  145 
Michigan,  etc.,  Co.v.Whittemore, 

12  Mich.  .311,  1180 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Michigan,    etc.,    R.    R.     Co.    v. 

Barnes,  40  Mich.  383,  654 

Mich.  Ins.  Bank  v.  Eldred,  130U. 

S.  693,  378 

Michon  v.  Ayalla,  84  Texas  685,      " 

S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  878,  1116 

Mickel  v.  Hicks,  19  Kan.  578,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  R.  161,  318,  451 

Mickev  v.  Ins.  Co.,  35  la.  174,  385 
:\Iickles  v.  Colvin,  4  Barb.  304,  1185 
Midberrv   v.    Collins,    9  Johns. 

345      '  1242 

INIiddleton  v.  Ames,  7  Vt.  166,  654 
Middletonv.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  579,  532 

Middletown  v.  Newport  Hospital, 

16  R.  I.  319,  S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A. 

191,  363 

Middleton   v.   Quigley,    7   Halst. 

(N.  J.)  352,  1108 

Middleworth    v.    McDowell,    49 

Ind.  386,  289 

Middough  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  520,  440 

Midkiff  V.  Lusher,  27  W.  Va.  439, 

1194 
Milbank  v.  Dennistoun,  21  N.  Y. 

386,  537 

Milbank  v.  Jones,  22  N.  Y.  S.  525, 

558 
Miles  V.  Berrv,  1  Hill  (S.  Car.) 

296,  '  368 

Miles  v.  Bovden,  3  Pick.  213,  293 

Miles  V.  Davis,  19  Mo.  408,  436 

Miles  V.  Douglass,  34  Conn.  393, 

1066 
Miles  V.  Lefi,  60  la.  168,  499 

Miles  V.  Loomis,  75  N.  Y.  288,  S. 

C.  31  Am.  R.  470,  714 

Miles  V.  Thorne,  38  Cal.  335,  S. 

C.  99  Am.  Dec.  384,  372 

Miles  V.  Vanhorn,  17  Ind.  245,  1226 
Miles  V.  Williams,  9  Q.  B.  47,  189 
Millan  v.  Hood  (Cal.),  30  Pac.  R. 

1107,  1165 

Millar  v.  Tavlor,  4  Burr.  2312,  963 
Miller,  Ex  parte,  82  Cal.  454,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  1113,  126 

Miller  v.  Adamson,  45  Minn.  99, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  452,         1161,  1167 
Miller  v.   Baschore,   93    Pa.   St. 

356,  382 

Miller  v.  Beal,'26  Ind.  234,  255,  565 
Miller  v.  Beck,  68  Mich.  76,  S.  C. 

35  N.  W.  R.  899,  551 

Miller  v.  Brenham,  68  N.  Y.  83,      430 
Miller  v.    Brinkerhoff,   4    Denio 
(N.  Y.)  lis,  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec. 

242,  165,  465 

Miller  v.  Brown,  47  Mo.  504,  76 


TAIILK    ()1-     (ASKS. 


clxxxv 


[References  are  to  Paf/es,  Vol.  I,  pp 


Miller  v.Bninibaiigli, 7  Kan.  343, 
Miller  v.  lUirger,  2  Ind.  337, 
Miller  V.  Cal)el!,  81  Kv.  178. 


Miller 

88, 
Miller 

Fed. 
Miller 


V.  Chandler,  29  La.  Ann. 


601 
233 
631 

465 


V.  Chicago,  etc.,   Co.,   41 

K.  898,  1021,  1025 

V.    City   of    Indianapolis, 

123  Ind.  196,  269,349,543 

Miller  v.  Com.,  88  Va.  618,  S.  C. 

14  8.  E.  R.   161,  S.  C.  15  L.  R. 

A.  441,  644 

Miller   v.   Edmonston,  8  Blackf. 

291,  206 

Miller  v.  Ewing,  8  Sm.  &  M.  421,      462 
Miller  v.  Finkle,  1  Park.  Cr.  R. 

374,  341 

Miller  v.  Foster,  76  Tex.  479,  274 

Miller  v.  Gilleland,  19  Pa.  St.  119,    533 
Miller  v.  Goodwine,  29  Ind.  46, 

576,  594 
Miller  v.  Hall,  1  Spears  1,  433 

Miller  v.  Hicken,  92  Cal.  229,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  339,  1148 

Miller  v.  Morton,  152  Mass.  540, 

S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  850,  170 

Miller  v.  House,  63  la.  82,  S.  C. 

18  N.  AV.  R.  708,  1042,  1051 

Miller  V.  Hower,  2  Ra\vle53,  1155 

Miller  v.  Jones,  39  111.  54,  495 

Miller  v.  Junction  Canal  Co.,  53 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  590,  586 

Miller  V.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Ry.   Co., 

63  la.  680,  370,  1209 

Miller  v.  Kolb,  47  Ind.  220,  190 

Miller  v.  Lebanon  Lodge,  88  Ind. 

286,  1165 

Miller  V.  Lively,  1  Ind.  App.  6,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  437,  1143,  1144 

Miller  v.  :\Ians,  28  Ind.  194,  1046 

Miller  v.  Mariners'  Church,  7  ^le. 

51,  505 

:\rarks,  20  ]Mo.  App.  369,  541 
McCiehee,  60  Miss.  903,  402 
Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.) 


Miller  v 
Miller  v 
Miller  v 

133, 
INIiller  v 
Miller  v 
:\Iiller  V 
Miller  V 
Miller  v 


360 
618 
280 
258 
477 


:\riller,  41  Md.  623, 
:vriller,  1  Bailev  242, 
:\Iiller,  44  Pa.  St.  170. 
:Mil]er,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  386, 
:\riller,  91  N.  Y.  315,  S. 
C.  43  Am.  R.  6()9,  292 

Miller  v.  Moore,  7  Serg.  ct  R.(Pa.) 

164,  583,  595 

Miller  v.  3Iorgan,  143  Mass.  25,  S. 

C.8  N.  E.  R.  644,  1113.  1114 

Miller  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  431.  441 

Miller  v.  Pence.  132  111.  149,  S.  C. 
23  N.  E.  R.  1030,  636 


.  l-fJ02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
Miller  V.  People,  39  111.  457,   1071,  1074 
Miller  v.  Pine,  etc.,  Co.  (Idaho), 

32  Pac.  R.  207,  493 

Miller  v.  Porter,  71  Ind.  521,  102^) 

Miller  v.  Railroa<l,  7  Neb.  227,       1188 
Miller  v.  Rovce,  60  Ind.  189,  190 

Miller  v.Slia(-kellurd,4Dana(Kv.) 

264,  1102,  1106 

Miller  v.  Sherry,  2  Wall.  237,  500 

Miller  v.  Smith,  112  Mass.  470,        783 
^liller  V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

20  Ore.  285,  S.  C.  4  Lewis'  Am. 

R.  R.  ct  Corp.  Cases  1,  536 

Miller  v.  Stark,  148  Pa.  St.  164,  S. 

C.  23  Atl.  R.  1058,  532 

Miller  v.  State,  29  Neb.  437,  S.  C. 

45  N.  W.  R.  451,  623 

Miller  v.  State,  3l  Tex.  Crim.  R. 

609,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  925,  634 

Miller  v.  State,  3  Wyo.  657,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  186,  1081 

Miller  v.  State,  9  Ind.  340,  624 

Miller  v.  State,  8  Ind.  325,  254 

Miller  v.  State,  2  Kan.  174,  213 

:\Iiller  V.  Steen,  30  Cal.  402,  1144 

Miller  v.  Supervisors,  25  Cal.  93, 

202 
Miller  v.  Swan,  91  Kv.  36,  S.  C. 

14  S.  W.  R.  964,        "  314 

Miller  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

132  U.  S.  662,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  20(),  380 

:\Iillerv.Traphagen,6N.J.  Eq.200,   490 
Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall. 

268,  128 

Miller  v.  Vermurie,  7  Wash.  386 

S.  C.  34  Pac.  R.  1108,  1076 

Miller  v.  Voss,  40  Ind.  307,  1089 

Miller  v.  AVhitehead,  m  Ga.  283, 

609, 
Miller  v.  White  River  School  Tp., 

101  Ind.  503,  1091 

I\Iiller  V.    WiMcat  Gravel   Road 

Co.,  52  Ind.  51,  654 

3Iiller  V.  Williams.  5  Esji.  19,  399 

.Miller  V.  Wilson,  12  Harris  (Pa.) 

114,  153 

Miller  v.  Windsor  Water  Co.,  148 

Pa.  St.  429,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  1132, 

721 
Miller  v.  Wolf,  63  la.  233,  182,  190 
Millerd  v.  Thorn,  56  N.  Y.  402, 

669,  677 
Millett  V.  Hayfonl,  1  Wis.  401.  1168 
Milliken  v.  Mannheimer,  49  ^linn. 

521.  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  139,  179 

Millikin  v.  Pratt.  125  Mass.  380, 

S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  241.  292 

:Millington.  In  re,  24  Kan.  214. 

142,  227 


clxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Millington  v.  Hill,  47  Ark.  301,       380 
Million  V.  Board,  89  Ind.  5, 

168,  241,  427 
Millison  v.  Holmes,  1  Ind.  45,         (535 
Millner  v.  Eglin,  64  Ind.  197,  S. 
.    C.  31  Am.  R.  121,  420,  1070 

Mills.  In  re,  135  U.  S.  263,  S.  C. 

10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  762,  340 

Mills  V.  Brown,  16  Peters  525,  113 
Mills  V.  Buchanan,  36  Ind.  490, 

1224,  1232 
Mills  V.  Commonwealth,  13  Pa- 
st. 627,  139 
Mills  V.  Davis,  113  N.  Y.  243,  S. 

C.  3  L.  R.  A.  394,  360,  518 

Mills  V.  Duryea,  2  Am.  L.   Cas. 

597,  329 

Mills  V.  Howland,  2  N.  Dak.  30,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  413,  435 

Mills  V.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Kan. 

574,  32 

Mills  V.  Miller,  2  Neb.  299,  1179 

Mills  V.  Oddv,  6  C.  &  P.  728,  504 

Mills  V.  Rice,  3  Neb.  76,  1211, 1213 
Mills  V.  Simmonds,  10  Ind.  464, 

1231,  1235 
Mills  V.  State,  52  Ind.  187,  1166 

Mills  V.  Thursby,    11   How.   Pr. 

114,  1206 

Mills  V.  Weeks,  21  111.  568,  406 

Mills  V.  AVinter,  94  Ind.  329,  714 

Milne  v.  Moreton,  6  Bin.  353,  302 

Milne  v.  Walker,  59  la.  186,  1060 

Milner  v.  Field,  5  Exch.  829,  407 

Milner  v.  Noel,  43  Ind.  324,  594,  601 
Milner  v.  Shipley,  94  Mo.  106,  328 
Milnes  v.  Gerv,  14  Ves.  Jr.  400,  587 
Milroy  v.  Quinn,  69  Ind.  406,  413 

Miltenberger  v.  Logansport,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  106  U.  S.  286,  S.  C.  1 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  140,  496 

Miltimore  v.  Miltimore,  40  Pa.  St. 

151,  345 

Milton  V.  Rowland,  11  Ala.  732,  513 
Milwaukee  County  Supervisors  v. 

Ehlers,  45  Wis.  281,  692 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kel- 

lofirg,  94  U.  S.  469,  534,  547 

Milwaukee   R.  R.  Co.  Soutter,  2 

Wall.  510,  494 

Milwaukee  School,   etc.,  v.   Mil- 
waukee, 40  Wis.  328,  294 
Mima  Queen  v. Hepburn, 2  Cranch 

C.  C.  3,  658 

Mima  Queen  Co.  v.  Hepburn,  7 

Cranch  290,  663 

Mimms  v.  State,  16  Ohio  St.  221 ,  666 
Mims  V.  Lockett,  23  Ga.  237,  558 

Mims  V.  We.st,  38  Ga.  18,  S.  C.  95 

Am.  Dec.  379,  498 


1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Miner  v.  Baron,  131  N.  Y.  677,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  481,  178 

Miner  v.  Beekman,  50  N.  Y.  337,  377 
Miner  v.  Clark,  16  Wend.  425,  412 
Miner  v.  Lorman,  66  Mich.  530, 

S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  866,  821 

Miner  v.  Lorman,  56  Mich.  212,  382 
Miner  v.  State,  63  Ga.  318,  1069 

Miner  v.  Vedder,  66  Mich.   101, 

S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  47,  1090,  1091 

Mineral  Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
ron, 83  111.  365,  474 
Mineral  Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Keep, 

22  111.9,  S.C.  74  Am.  Dec.  124,       440 
Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Do- 
ran,  17  Minn.  188,  679 
Minnesota    Linseed    Oil    Co.    v. 

Montague,  59  la.  448,  556 

Minnich  v.  Darling  (Ind.  App.), 

36  N.  E.  R.  173,  1142, 1146 

Minnig's  Appeal,  82  Pa.  St.  373,      350 
Minnoch  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  Co.,  90 
Mich.   236,  S.  C.   51  N.  W.   R. 
367,  162 

Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  162, 

202 
Minor  v.  Hill,  58  Ind.  176,  S.  C.  26 

Am.  R.  71,  301,  1176 

Minor  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  289,  1156 
Minor  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet. 

(U.  S.)  46,  556,  1194 

Minton  v.  Underwood,  etc.,  Co., 
79  Wis.  646,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 
857,  719 

Missouri   Co.  v.  Bailev,  51  Kan. 

192,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  894,  1162 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Munkers,  11 

Kan.  223,  663 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Russell,  60 

Fed.  R.  501,  1236 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vandeven- 

ter,  26  Neb.  222,  1206 

Missouri,  K.  &.  T.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Kir- 
schoffer  (Tex.),  24  S.  W.  R.577, 

1079 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
penter, 44  Kan.  257,  S.  C.  24  Pac. 
R.  462,  531 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Collier, 

62  Texas,  318,  441 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Good- 
rich, 38  Kan.  224,  S.  C.  16  Pac. 
R.  439,  1169 

Missouri  Pac,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hays, 

15  Neb.  224,  1230 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Holley, 

30  Kan.  465,  1088 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Platzer, 
73  Tex.  117,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R. 
160,  S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  639,      558,  1067 


TAELK    ()!•    CASKS. 


clxxxvii 


[lieftTfuces  are  to  Pagrs,  \"ul.  /,  jyp 
Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Reynolds, 

31  Kan.  132,  "  1091 

Missouri  Telegraph   Co.  v.  First 

Nat.  Bank,  74  111.  217,  118,  247 

Mississippi  Cent.  R.  R.  Co. v.  Fort, 

44  Miss.  423,  374 

Mitcliell  V.  Bunoh,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

GOt),    S.  C.   22    Am.  l)ec.  cm, 

281,  470,  477 
Mitchell  V.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117, 

1133 
Mitchell  V.  Aten,  37  Kan.  33,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  497,  1198 

Mitchell  V.  Barnes,  22  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  194,  49o 

Mitchell  V.  Bnrch,  30  Ind.  529,  1113 
Mitchell's  Claim,  L.  R.  0  Ch.  App. 

822  383 

Mitchell   V.  Colglazier,   100   Ind. 

404,  1147 

Mitchell  V.  Com.,  78  Kv.  219,  803 

Mitchell  V.  Conlev,  13  Ark.  414,  429 
Mitchell  v.Curran,  1  Mo.  App. 453,  000 
Mitchell  V.  Ehle,  10  Wend.  X.  Y. 

595,  1118,  1119 

Mitchell  V.  Friedley,  126  Ind.  545, 

1049, 1148 
Mitchell  V.  Geisendorff,  44  Ind. 

358,  1193 

Mitchell  V.  Huron  Circuit  Judge, 

53  Mich.  541,  458 

Mitchell  V.  Lincoln,  78  Ind.  531,  191 
Mitchell  V.  Maxwell,  2  Fla.  594, 

298,  522 
Mitchell  V.    McCorkle,    69   Ind. 

184,  120,  1198 

Mitchell  V.  Merrill,  2  Blackf.  87, 

5.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  128,  402 
Mitchell  V.  Mitchell,  1  Gill  (Md.) 

06,  174,  311 
Mitchell  V.  Mitchell,  80  Tex.  101, 

S.  C.  19S.  W.  R.  477,  1047 

Mitchell  V.   Overman,  103  U.  S. 

62,  187,  189 

Mitchell  V.  Sawyer,  115  111.050.  794 
Mitchell  V.    Schoonover,  10  Ore. 

211,  8.  C.  S  Am.  St.  R.  282,  189 

Mitchell  V.  Sellman,  5  Md.  370,  719 
Mitchell  V.  St.  John,  98  Ind.  598, 

150,  1203 
IMitchell  V.  State,  94  Ala.  68,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  518,  802,  809 

Mitchell  V.  State,  22  Ga.  211,  S.  C. 

68  Am.  Dec.  493,  625 

Mitchell  V.  United  States,  9  Pet. 

71 1 ,  254,  492 

Mitchell  V.  Welch.  17  Pa.  St.  339, 

S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  557,  783 

Mitchell  V.   Woodson,   37   :Miss. 

567,  450 


.  1-(j02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-7244.] 
Mitcheson    v.    Foster,    3    Metcf. 

(Kv.)  324,  297 

Mitchum  v.  State,  11  Ga.  615,  819 

Mix  V.  Chan<ller,  44  III.  174,  173 

Mix  V.  Peoph'.  lOO  111.  425,  609 

Moakler   v.    Willamette,   etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  18  Ore.  189,  8.  C.  22  Pac. 

R.  948,  534 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas, 

42  Ala.  <i72,  531 

Mobley  v.  Leophart,  51  Ala.  587, 

509 
Moblev  V.  State,  83  Ind.  92,  1168 

Moblev  V.  Watts,  98  N.  Car.  284, 

1049 
Moet  V.  Couston,  33  Beav.  578,  1210 
IMogul,  etc.,  Co.  V.  McGregor,  L. 

R.  23  Q.  B.  Div.  598,  483 

Mohawk    Bank   v.  Broderick,  10 

Wend.  (X.  Y.)  304,  555 

Mohr  V.  Manierre,  101  U.  8.  417, 

324 
:\Iohr  V.  Tulip,  40  Wis.  66,  449 

Moller  V.  Tuska,  87  X.  Y.  100, 

351,  354,  374 
Moline,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Webb,  141, 

U.  S.  010,  1223 

Molyneux  v.  Sevraour,  30  Ga.  440, 

8.  C.  70  Am.  Dec.  002,  281,  302 

Monell  V.  Dennison,  17  How.  Pr. 

422,  314 

3Ionev  V.  Leach,  3  Burr.  1692,  1221 
]Money  v.  State,  89  Ala.  110,  543 

Monford  v.  Rowland,  11  Stew.  (X. 

J.)  181,  722 

Monnell  v.  Weller,  2  Johns.  (X. 

Y.)  8,  1047 

Monnett  v.  Turpie,  1.33  Ind.  424,  1129 
:\Ionnett  v.  Tur|)io,  132  Ind.  484.  281 
Monongahela,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fenlon, 

4  Watts  i*c  S.  (Pa.)  205,  590 

Monongahela  Water  Co.  v.  Stew- 

artson,  90  Pa.  St.  43(5,  802 

Monroe   v.  Adams   Exp.  Co.,  65 

Ind.  ()0,  1098 

^Monroe  v.  British,  etc.,  Co.,  52 

Fed.  R.  777,  1050 

:\Ionroe  v.  Ciialdeck,  78  111.  429,  399 
Monroe  v.  Fold,  72  Cal.  568,  8.  C. 

14  Pac.  R.  514,  412 

Monroe  v.  Snow,  131  HI.  126,  S. 

C.  33  111.  App.  230,  S.  C.  23  X. 

E.  R.  401,  1225 

^lontague   v.  Commonwealth,  10 

Gratt.  (Va.)  707,  0-iS 

Montague  v.  Mitchell,  2S  III.  4S1. 

502 
Montana  Rv.  Co.  v.  Warren,  137 

U.  S.  348,"  8.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  041. 

152,  180.  1134.  2213 


clxxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IReferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Montee  v.  Commonwealth,  3  J.  J. 

Marsh  (Ky.)  132,  1058 

Montgomery  v.  Heilman,  96  Pa. 

St.  44.       ■  346 

Montcomerv  v.  Samory,  99  TJ.  S. 

482.^  ■  289 

Montgomery  v.  State,  11  Ohio  424, 

1058 
Montaromerv  v.  Swindler,  32  Ohio 

St.  224,     '  669,  676 

Montgomery  v.  Tow^nsend,  84  Ala. 

478,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  155,  S.  C.  4 

So.  R.  780,  545,  559 

Montgomery  v.  Trumh,  126  Ind. 

331,  ■  403 

Montgomery  v.  Tutt,  11  Cal.  307,  457 
Montgomery  v.  Wabash  R.  R.,  90 

Mor446,  '  663 

Montgomery  v.  Wasem,  116  Ind. 

343,  S.  C.'l5  N.  E.  R.  795,  S.  C. 

19  N.  E.  R.  184,  101,  134,  165,  432 
Montgomery  v.  White   (Ky.),   11 

S.  W.  R.  10,  ■  527 

Montgomery  v.  Wilson,  58   Ind. 

591,  622 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rock,  41 

Ind. 263,  '  1143 

Montgomery  Co.  v.  Carey,  1  Ohio 

St.  463,     "  586 

Mood  y.  Taylor,  12  la.  71,  431 

Moody  V.  Butler,  63  Tex.  210, 

112,  188 
Moody  V.  Deutsch,  85  Mo.  237,  544 
Moody  V.  Griffin,  65  Ga.  304,  656 

Moody  V.  Harper,  38  Miss.  599,  269 
Moody  V.  Keener,  7   Porter  Ala. 

218,  1116 

Moodv  V.  Pomeroy,  4  Denio   (N. 

Y.)"ll5,  "  1077 

Moody  V.  Rowell,  17  Pick. (Mass.) 

490,  S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec.  317,  180,  783 
Mooers  v.  Bunker,  9  N.  H.  420,  32 
Moomev  v.  Maas,  22  la.  380,  321 

Moon  V.  Jennings,  119  Ind.  1.30,  1166 
Moon  V.  Martin,  122  Ind.  211,  567 
Moon  V.  Wellford,  84  Va.  34,  S. 

C.  4  S.  E.  R.  572,  176 

Mooney  v.  Kinsey,  90  Ind.  33,  1224 
Moore   v.   Allen,  5  Ind.  521, 

675,  679 
Moore  v.  Armstrong,  36  Am.  Dec. 

63,  381 

Moore  y.  Baker,  4  Ind.  App.  115, 

S.  C.  .30  N.  E.  R.  629,  353 

Moore  v.  Barnett,  17  Ind.  349, 

591,  599 
Moore  v.Bettis,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

67,  S.  C.  53  Am.  Dec.  771,  800 

Moore  v.  Carter,  146  Pa.  St.  492,  S. 

C.  23  Atl.  R.  243,  557 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Moore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

59  Miss.  243,  794,  796 

Moore  v.  Church,  70  la.  208,  S.  C. 

59  Am.  R.  439,  302 

]\Ioore  V.  Clark,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  152,  382 
Moore  v.  Dunn,  41  Ohio  St.  62,  1179 
Moore  v.  Estes,  79  Ky.  282,  1194 

Moore  V.  Ewing,  Coxe  (N.  J.)  144, 

S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  195,  591,  592 

Moore  v.  Felkel,  7  Fla.  44,  138 

Moore  y.  Fitz,  15  Ind.  43,  468 

Moore  v.  Garner,  101  N.  Car.  374, 

S.  C.  7  S.  E.  R.  732,  390 

Moore  y.  Garner,  109  N.  Car.  157, 

S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  768,  178,  1177 

Moore  v.  Gherkin,  Bush.  L.    (N. 

Car.)  73,  595 

Moore  v.  Goelitz,  27  111.  18,  622 

Moore  y.  Graves,  3  N.  H.  408,  198 

Moore  y. Green, 4  Humph. (Tenn.) 

299,  473 

Moore  v.  Green  Co.  Coms.,  87  N. 

Car.  209,  362 

Moore  y.  Gwynn,  5  Ired.  L.  (N. 

Car.)  1-87,  545 

Moore  v.  Henry,  18  Mo.  App.  35, 

1135,  1139 
Moore  y.Herndon,5  Blackf.(Ind.) 

168,  1049 

Moore  y.  Holt,  10  Gratt.  ( Va.)  284,  464 
Moore  v.  Hudson,  6  Mad.  138,  477 
Moore  v.  Jaeger,  2  Mc Arthur  465,  280 
Moore  y.  Jeffers,  53  la.  202,  S.  C. 

4  N.  W.  R.  1084,  318,  341 

Moore  y.  Jordan,  65  Tex.  395,  255 

Moore  v.  Luckess,  23  Gratt.  (Va.) 

160,  600 

Moore  y.  Moore,  67  Tex.  293,  S.  C. 

3  S.  W.  R.  284,  1116 

Moore  v.  Murrell,  56  Ark.  375,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  973,  531 

Moore  y.  Muse,  47  Tex.  210,  205 

Moore  y.  Neil,  39  111.  256,  S.  C.  89 

Am.  Dec.  303,  446 

Moore  y.  Norman,  43 Minn.  428,  S. 

C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  247,  403 

Moore  v.  Northern  Pac,  etc.,  Co., 

37  Minn.  147,  S.  C.  33  N.W.  Rep. 

334,  552 

Moore  v.  O'Barr,  87  Ga.  205,  S.  C. 

13S.  E.  R.  464,  609 

Moore  y.  Penn,  95  Ala.  200,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  343,  1235 

Moore  v.  People,  14  How.  17,  308 

Moore  v.  Philbrick,  .32  Me.  102,  S. 

C.  52  Am.  Dec.  642,  314 

Moore  y. Railroad  Co. ,43  la.  385,  475 
Moore  y.  Sauborin,  42  Mo.  470,  1197 
Moore  v.  Starks,  1  Ohio  St.  369,  293 
Moore  v.  State,  79  Ga.  498,  520 


tai;lk  ok  cases. 


clx.^ 


XXIX 


[Eeferences  arc  to  Puf/ps,  \'nl.  /,  pp 

Moore  v.  State,  03  Ga.  16r),  188 

Moore  v.  State,  88  Ala.  .SiiO,  510 

Moore  v.  State,  55  Iml.  :iW,  393 

Moore  v.  State,  21Texa«  AppJMj, 

S.  C.  2  S.  W.  Rep.  034,  015 

Moore  v.  Tanner,  5  T.   B.  Mon. 

42,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  35,  274 

Moore  v.  Taylor,  1  Idaho  (N.  S.) 

030,  185 

Moore  v.  Thayer,   10  Barl).    (N. 

Y.)  258,  470 

Moore  v.  Trimier,  32  S.  Car.  511,  519 
Moore  V.  Uhn,  34  Ga.  505,  1167 

Moore  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S. 

270,  740 

Moore  v.  Valda,  151  Mass.  363,  S. 

C.  23  N.  E.  R.  1102,  S.  C.  7  L. 

R.  A.390,  477,776 

Moore  v.  Watkins,  1  Ark.  268,  428 
Moore  v.  Watts   (Ala.),  2  So.  R. 

278,  1068 

Moore   v.   Westervelt,    21   N.  Y. 

103,  548 

Moore'a  Admrs.  v.  Saiith,  88  Ky. 

151,  S.  C.  lOS.  W.  R.  380,  618 

Moorman  v.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144,  71 
Moose  V.  Carson,  104  N.  Car.  431, 

S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R.  681,  366 

Moran  v. Miami  County,  2  Blackf. 

(U.S.)  722,  105 

I\Iore  V.  INIassini,  32  Cal.  590,  301 

Moreland  v.  Lawrence,  23  Minn. 

84,  804 

IMoresi  v.  Swift,  15  Nev.  215,  465 

Morev  V.  Homan,  10  Vt.  565,  1209 
Morgan,  Matter  of,  104  N.  Y.  74, 

S.C.  9N.  E.  R.  861,  720 

Morgan's  Appeal,  110  Pa.  St.  271, 

S.  C.  4  Atl.  R.  500.  188,  599 

Morgan  v.  Avery,  7  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

656,  404 

Morgan  v.  Bell,  3  Wash.  554,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  A.  014,  281 

Morgan  v.  Birnie,  9  Bing.  672, 

406,  590 
Morgan  v.  Durfee,  69  Mo.  469  S. 

,C.  9  Cent.  Law  Jour.  12,  1051 

Morgan  v.  Eggers,  127  U.  S.  63,  185 
Morgan  v.  Furst,  4   Mart.  N.   S. 

(La.)  116,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  166, 

469 
Morgan  v.  Gaar,  Scott  &  Co.,  64 

Ind.  213,  71 

Morgan  v.  Gay,  19  Wall.  81,  1131 

Morgan   v.  Gregg,  46   Barb.    (N. 

Y.)  183,  395 

Morgan  v.  Hammett.  23  Wis.  30,  235 
Morgan  v.  ITavs.  91  Ind.  132,  1243 
Morgan  v.  Ileckcr,  74  Cal.  540,  S. 

C.lO  Pac.  Rep.  317,  540 


l-fJ02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 

•Morgan  v.  Hodges,   15  L.  R.  A. 

438,  506 

MoiL'un  V.  .Jones,  24  Ga.  155,  50<J 

Morgan  v.  Mori.'an,  10  (Ja.  297,  459 
.Morgan  v.  Muldoun,  82  In<l.  347,  412 
Morgan  v.  Nuiics,  54  Miss.  308,  4fj4 
Morgan  v.  State,  12  Ind.  448,  103 

Morgan  v.  State,  48  Ohio  St.  371, 

S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  710,  1072 

Morgan  v.  Stevenson,  0  Ind.  169, 

061 
Morgan  v.  Tener,  S3  Pa.  St.  305, 

367 
Morgan  v.  Woods,  33  Ind.  23, 

432,446 
Morgan's    Heirs    v.     Morgan,    2 

Wlieat.  290,  336 

Morgan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc., 

Co.,  137  U.  S.  171,  412 

i\Ioriarty  v.  Stofferan,89  111. .528,  394 
Morisev  v.  Swinson,  104  N.  Car. 

555,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  754, 

149,  234,  1147 
Morison  v.  Moat,  9  Hare  241,  485 

Moritz  V.  :\Iiller,  87  Ala.  331,  S.  C. 

6  So.  R.  209,  195,  496 

^lorlev  V.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

85  Mich.  210,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 

502,  589 

:\rorn  V.  Kuzac,  21  La.  Ann.  754,  248 
Morningstar  v.  Musser,  129  Ind. 

470,  1147.  1236 

Morrell  v.  Frith,  3  M.  &  W.  403, 

009  538 

Morrell  v.  :\Iorrell,  17  Hun  324,"'ll31 
Morrill  v.  Fitzgerald,  30  Tex,  275,  435 
Morrill  v.  Morrill,  20  Ore.  90,  S.  C. 

23  Am.  St.  R.  95, 

329,  330,  335,  426,  427 
Morrill  v.  Ravmond,  28  Kan.  415, 

S.  C.  42  Ani.  R.  167.  471 

Morris  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  116 

N.  Y.  552.  799 

Morris  v.  Ellis,  7  .Inr.  413,  378 

Morris  v.  Gilmer,  129  V.  S.  315,  1214 
Morris  v.  Grier.  70  N.  Car.  410,  582 
Morris  v.  Hoyt,  11  Mich.  9.  404 

Morris  v.  Indianai»olis,  etc.,  Co., 

10  111.  App.  389.  1025 

Morris  v.  People,  3  Denio381,  210 

Morris  v.  Rexford,  18  N.  Y.  552, 

353,  354 
ISIorris  v.  Stern,  SO  Ind.  227,  1212 

Morris  v.  Trustees,  15  111.  200,  435 
Morris  v.  Wells,  7  N.  Y.  Sup.  01, 

S.  C.  54  Hun  (X.  Y.)  034.  718 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Avres, 

29  X.  .7.  L.  393,  ■  545 

Morris,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  3  N. 

J.  Eq.  9,  490 


cxc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Morrisev   v.    Sehindler,    18   Neb. 

672.    •  111-1 

Morrison  v.  Alphin,  23  Ark.  136,     469 
Morrison  v.  Austin,  14  Wis.  601, 

1199 
Morrison   v.    Berkev,    7   S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  238,  1030 

Morrison  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  84  la.  663,  S.  C.  51  N.  W. 
E.  75,  813 

Morrison  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  27  La. 

Ann.  401,  155 

Morrison  v.  Estate  of  Sessions,  70 
Mich.  297,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R. 
500,  291 

Morrison  v.  Faulkner,  80  Tex.  128, 

S.  C.  loS.  AV.R.  797,  1145 

Morrison  v.  Jacobv,  114  Ind.  84, 

402,  403 
Morrison  v.  Lehew,  17  Mo.  App. 

633.  1235 

Morrison  v.  Leonard,  3  Car.  &  P. 

127,  741 

Morrison  v.  March,  4  Minn.  422, 

1134 
Morrison  v.  McKinnon,  12   Fla. 

552,  656, 668 

Morrison  v.  Morrison,  4  Hare  590, 

1216 
Morrison  v.  State,  76  Ind.  335, 

798,  821,  823 
Morrison  v.  Underwood,  5  Cush. 

52,  ^         _  276 

Morriss  v.  Virginia  Ins.  Co.,  85 

Ya.  588,  S.  C.  8  S.  E.  R.  383,        236 
Morrow     v.     Commissioners,    21 

Kan.  484,  1083 

Morrow  v.  Weed,  4  la.  77, 

320,  321,  427 
Morse  v.  Aldrich,  1  Mete. (Mass.) 

544,  395 

Morse  v.  Anderson,  14  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

43  1236 

Morse  v.  Bishop,  55  Vt.  231 ,  597 

Morse  v.  Mason,  103  Mass.  560,      1139 
:^rorse  v.  Morse,  25  Ind.  156,  1088 

Morse  v.  Morse,  44  Vt.  84,  481 

:Morse  v.  Presbv,  25  N.  H.  299,        297 
Morse  v.  Woodworth,  155  Mass. 
233.  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  525,  S.  C. 
27  N.  E.  R.  1010,  504,  706,  1243 

Mortimer  v.  McCallam,  6  M.  & 

AV.  58,  504 

]\Iorton  V.  Beall,  2  Har.  &  G.  (Md.) 

136,  1069 

Morton  v.  Chandler,  8  Me.  9,  375 

Morton  v.  Coffin,  29  Ta.  235,  529 

Morton  v.  Crane,  39  Mich.  526,       436 
Morton  v.  Lee,  28  Kan.  286,  217 

Morton  v.  State,  1  Kan.  468,  661 


J-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'\ 
Morton  v.  White,  16  Me.  53,  503 

:Moschell  V.  State,  54  N.  J.  L.  390, 
S.  C.  22  Atl.  Kep.  50,  S.  C.  13 
Crim.  L.  Mag.  742,  660,  664 

Moses  V.  Central  Park,  etc.,R.  R. 
Co.,  3  Misc.  R.  322,  S.  C.  23  N. 
Y.  Supp.  23,  1120 

Moses  V.  Julian,  45  N.  H.  52,  S.  C. 

84  Am.  Dec.  114,  218,  220,  233 

Moses  V.  Risdon,  46  la.  251,  1213 

Moses  V.  State,  58  Ala.  117,  1074 

Mosher  v.  Lawrence, 4  Denio  419,  1225 
Moshierv.  Shear,  102  111.169,  S.  C. 

40  Am.  R.  573,  601 

Mosier  v.  Stoll,  119  Ind.  244,  S.  C. 

20  N.  E.  R.  752,  539 

Moss'  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  264,  S.  C. 

24  Am.  R.  164,  955 

Moss  V.  Johnson,  36  S.  Car.  551,  1136 
Moss  V.  Priest,  19  Abb.  Pr.  314,  1091 
Mostvn  V.  Fabrigas,  1  Cowp.  161, 

S.  C.  ]  Smith's  L.  Cas.  652,  310 

Moulder  v.  Kempff,  115  Ind.  459, 

174,  621 
MouHn  V.  Ins.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  L.  222,  440 
Moulton  V.  de  ma  Carty,  6  Rob. 

(N.  Y.  Sup.),  470,  430 

Moulton  V.  Moulton,  47  Hun  606,  443 
Mount  V.  Derick,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

455,  395 

Mt.  Desert  v.  Tremont,  75  Me.  252,  597 
Mountfort,  Ex  parte,  15  Ves.  445, 

495 
Mowry  v.  Blandin,  64  N.  H.  3,  451 
Mowry  v.  Providence,  10  R.  I.  52,  366 
Mowry  v.  Wood,  12  Wis.  414,  557 

Moye  V.  Petway,  76  N.  Car.  327,     1172 
Moyers  v.  Goiner,  22  Fla.  422,         195 
■  Moynahan  v.  Moore,  9  Mich.  8,  S. 
C.  77  Am.  Dec.  468, 

400,  401,  402,  404 
Mudge  V.  Steinhart,  78  Cal.  34,  S. 
C.   12  Am.  St.  R.   17,  S.    C.  20 
Pac.  R.  147,  452,463 

Mudge  V.  Yaples,  58  Mich.  307,  S. 

C.  25  N.  W.  R.  297,  183 

Mueller  v.  Rebhan,  94  111.  142,  665 
Mueller  v.  State,  76  Ind.  310,  545 

Muilman  v.  D'Eguino,  2   H.  Bl. 

565,  555 

Muirhead  v.  Muirhead,  16  Miss. 

211,  1229 

Maladv  v.  McEnary,  30  Ind.  273, 

1089 
Muldrow  V.  Norris,  2  Cal.  74,  S. 

C.  56  Am.  Dec.  313,  248,  602 

Muldrow  V.  Robinson,  58  Mo.  331, 

548 
Mulhado  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  R. 
Co.,30N.  Y.  370,  810 


TAT.LK    OF    CASES. 


CXCl 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pj 
Mulhearn  v.  Press  Pub.  Co.,  53  N. 

J.  L.  150,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  7«iO,  608 
Mulhearn  v.  Press  Pub.  Co.,  53  N. 

J.  L.  153,  S.  C.  11  L.  R.  A.  101,  457 
Mull's  Case,  8  Gratt.  (Va.)  605,  621 
Mull  V.  Jones,  33  Kan.  112,  474 

Mull  V.  Martin.  85  N.  Car.  406,  520 
Mullen  V.  Doyle,  147  Pa.  St.  512, 

S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  807,  372 

Mullen    V.    St.    Louis    Hospital 

Assn.,  73  Mo.  242,  797 

Mullen  V.  Torrance, !)  Wheat.  537,  336 
Mullen  V.  Wine,  !»  Colo.  167,  1212 

.Mailer  v.  Ehlers,  01  C.  S.  249,  1236 
Muller  V.  Hoyt,  14  Tex.  49,  506 

MuUer  v.  St.  Louis  Assn.,  73  Mo. 

242,  709 

Mullery  v.  Hamilton,  71  Ga.  720,  30, 31 
Mullick  V.  Radakissen,  28  Eng.  L. 

&  Eq.  86,  555 

Mulligan  v.  Smith,  59  Cal.  206.  324 
Mullins  V.  Sparks,  43  Miss.  129,  439 
Muniford    v.  Wardwell,    6  Wall. 

423,  1099,  1102 

Mumford  v. Wilson,  15  Mo.  540,  1145 
Muncey  v.  Joest,  74  Ind.  409,  426,  450 
Muncie  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mavnard,5 

Ind.  App.  372,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

343,  1096 

Munday  v.  Vail,  34  N.  J.  L.  418,  245 
Munro  v.  Alaire,  2  Caines  320, 

573,  584,  596 
Monro  v.  Potter,  34  Barb.  358,  1164 
Monroe  v.  Douglass,  5  N.  Y.  447,  545 
Monroe  v.  Luke,  19  Pick.  (Mass.) 

39,  467 

Monroe  V.  Williams,  19  L.  R.  A. 

665,  464 

Munshower  v.  Patton,  10  Serg.  & 

Rawle  334,  S.  C.  13  Am.  Dec. 

678,  652 

Munson  v.  Mavor,  19  Fed.  R.313,  492 
Munson  v.  Newson,  9  Tex.  109,  314 
Munson  V.  Railroad  Co.,  120  Mass. 

81,  S.  C.  21  Am.  R.  499,  470 

Munzesheimer  v.    Fairbanks,   82 

Tex.  351,  S.  C.  18  S.  AV.  R.  697, 

153,  228 
Murchie  v.  Gates,  78  Me.  300,  1071 
Murchison  v. White,  54  Tex.  78,  314 
Murdock's  Case,  2  Bland  Ch.  461, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec.  381,  478,  480 

Murdock  v.   Cincinnati,   etc.,  44 

Fed.  R.  726,  484 

Murdock  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  33 

AV.Va.  407.  S.C.  10  S.  E.  R.  777, 

S.   C.    1    Lewis'  Am.    R.    R.  & 

Corp.  Cases  24,  385 

Murdock  v.  Ganahl,  47  Mo.  135.  1190 
Murdock  v.  Hughes,  15  Miss.  219,    372 


j-';oL\  I',/.  jr,pp.  nos-T244.'] 

Murdock  V.  Little,  IS  Ga.  719,  627 

Murdock  V.  .Martin,  132  Pa.  St.  86, 

S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  1114,  1180 

Murdv  V.  McCutcheon,  95  Pa.  St. 

435,  11<)4 

Murfree     v.    Carmack,    4    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  2()9,  ISO 

Murphy  v.  Barlow.  5  Ind.  230,  161 
Murphv  V.  Citv  of  Peoria,  119  111. 

509,  hi.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  895,  557 

Murphy  v.  Cobb,  5  Col.  281,  1051 

Murphy   v.    Donlan,   5    Barn.   & 

Cress.  178,  1040 

Murphy  v.  Creighton,  45  la.  179,  262 
Murphv  V.  King,  6  Mont.  30,  S. 

C.  9  Pac.  R.  585.  1184 

Murphv  V.  Loo.s,  104  111.  514,  437 

Murphv  V.  Murphv,  31  Mo.  322, 

623,  624 
Murphy  v.  People,  2  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

815,  642 

:\Iurphv  V.  State,  97  Ind.  579,  644 

:\Iurphy  V.  Stults,  1.  N.  J.  Eq.  560, 

1128 
Murphv  V.  State,  37  Ala.  142,  666 

Murphy  v.  Tilly,  11  Ind.  511,  1231 
Murphy  v.  Tomlan,  7  Dowl.  &  Rv. 

619,  ■   1040 

Murphy  v.  United  States,  104  V. 

S.  464,  347 

jNIurrav  v.  Abbott,  61  Wis.  198,  1088 
Murrav  v.  Baker,  3  Wheat. (L^.  S.) 

541,"  381 

Murray   v.  Ballou,  1   Johns.  Ch. 

566,  498 

Murrav  v.  Bnrris,  6  Dak.  170,  S. 

C.  42  N.  W.  R.  25,  1214 

Murrav  v.  East  India  Co.,  5  B.  & 

Aid."  204,  361 

Murrav  v.  Finster,  2  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.V.)155,  498 

Murrav  v.  Gibson,  2  La.  Ann.  311, 

467,  468 
Murrav  v.  Lvlburn,  2  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.V.)441,  498 

Murrav  v.  McDougall,  3  N.  J.  L. 

956,  1047 

]Murray  v.  Murrav,  6  Ore.  17,  287 

Murray  v.  N.  J.,"  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

23  N.  J.  L.  63,  626 

Murrav  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  85 

N.  Y.  236,  -  676,  677 

Murrav  v.  New  York, etc.,  Rv.  Co., 

103  Pa.  St.  37.  ■  1071 

iVIurray  v.  Phillips.  59  Ind.  56,  1098 
Murra"v  v.  Scribner,  70  Wis.  228,  1183 
Murrav  v.  Silver.  1  C.  B.  638,  S. 

C.  14  L.  J.  C.  P.  168,  1047 

Murrav  v.  Spencer,  88  N.Car.357,  5.33 
Murray  v.  State,  26  Ind.  141,         1078 


CXCll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Befereitces  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  p^ 
Murray  v.  Usher,  117  N.Y.  542,     1221 
JNIurrav  v.   Windlev,  7  Ired.  (N. 

Car.)  201,  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec. 324,     402 
Murrell   v.   Johnson,  3  Hill    (S. 

Car.)  12,  108 

Murrv  v.  Burris,  6  Dak.  170,  S.  C. 

42  N.  W.  R.  25,  113,  332 

jNIurtland  v.  Flovd,  153  Pa.  St.  99, 

S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  1038,  1195 

Muscott  V.  Hanna,  26  Kan.  770,  1134 
ZMuscott  V.  Woodsworth,  14  How. 

Pr.  R.  477,  197 

IMusgrave  v.  State,  133  Ind.  297, 

S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  885,  1064,  1065 

Mnsick  v.  People,  40  111.  268,  655 

]Musselbrook  v.  Dunkin,  9  Bing. 

605,  580 

Musselman's  Appeal,  65  Pa.  St. 

480,  128 

Musselman  v.  Pratt,  44  Ind.  126, 

629,  1160 

Mussen  v.  Ausable  Granite  Works, 

63  Hun  367,  119 

Mussen  v.  Price,  4  East  147,  389 

Musina  v.  Cavozos,  6  Wall.  355,  1239 
Mussey  v.  Rayner,  22  Pick.  223,  413 
Musson  V.  Lake,  4  How.  (U.  S.) 

262,  411 

Mutual,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cannon,  48 

Ind.  264,  1093 

Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co.  v.  Hill- 

mon,  145  U.  S.  285,  S.  C.  12  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  909,  664 

Myatt  V.  Lockhart,  9  Ala.  91,  473 

Myer  v.  Fegaly,  39  Pa.  St.  429,  1190 
Myer  v.    Liverpool  Ins.   Co.,  40 

iVId.  595,  473 

Myer  v.  Moon,  45  Kan.  580,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  40,  1211,  1213 

Myers  v.  Baltzell,  37  Pa.  St.  491,  475 
Mvers  v.  Bealer,  30  Neb.  280,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  479,  505 

Myers  v.  Block,  120  U.  S.  206,  490 
Myers  v.  Cronk,  113  N.  Y.  608,  S. 

C.  21  N.  E.  R.  984,  111 

Myers  v.  Davis,  47  la.  325,  293 

Myers  v.   Easterwood,  60  Texas 

107,  577 

Myers  v.  Estell,  48  Miss.  372,  493 

Myers  v.  Farrell,  47  Miss.  281,  465 
Myers  v.  Jarboe,  56  Ind.  57,  1167 

Myers,  v.  Landrum,  4  Wash.  762, 

S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  33,  1200 

Myers  v.  Lawyer,  99  Ind.  237,  1138 
Myers  v.  Mitchell,  1  S.  Dak.  249, 

S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  245,  169,  234 

Myers  v.  Murphy,  60  Ind.  282,  514 
Myers  v.  Overton,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  344,  4.36 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-1244.'] 
Myers  y.  Schneider,  21  Mo.  77,       621 
Mvers  y.  Smith,  15  la.  181, 

1142,  1146 
Myers  y.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  157,  1239 
Myers  y.  State,  92  Ind.  390,  235 

Myers  y.  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 

Curt.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  28,  594 

Mynning  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  64  Mich.  93,  S.  C.  Am.  St. 

R.  804,  1051,  1053 

Mvric  y.  Adams,  4  Munf.  (Va.) 

366,  452 

N 

Nabers  v.  Meredith,  67  Ala.  333,      191 
Nabors   v.    Lattimer,   30   S.   Car. 

607,  1135 

Nabors  v.  State,  6  Ala.  200,  148 

Nading   v.  McGregor,    121     Ind. 

465,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  686,  413 

Naffzieger  v.  Reed,  98  Mo.  87,  S. 

C.  11  S.  W.  R.  315,  237 

Naglee  v.  Spencer,  60  Cal.  10,        1169 
Nail  V.  State,  70  Miss.  32,  S.  C.  11 

So.  R.  793,  646 

Nance   y.     Thompson,    1    Sneed 

(Tenn.)  320,  600 

Nangatuck  R.  R.  Co.  v.Waterbury, 

etc.,  Co.,  24  Conn.  468,  1039 

Nanson  v.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331,  354 

Napper  v.  Noland,  9  Port.  (Ala.) 

218,  138 

Nash  y.  Caywood,  39  Ind.  457, 

1132,  1143 
Nash  y.  Drisco,  51  Me.  417,  536 

Nash  v.  State,  7  Ind.  666,  205 

Nashua  Savings  Bank  v.  Lovejoy, 

1  N.  Dak.  211,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R. 

411.  611 

Nashville  v.  Potomac  Ins.  Co. ,58 

Tenn.  296,  473 

Nashville,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Fourth  Nat. 

Bank,  91  Tenn.  336,  S.  C.  15  L. 

R.  A.  710,  1137 

Nason  v.  Jordan,  62  Me.  480,  502 

National  Bank  v.  Isham,  48  Vt. 

590,  738 

National  Bank  v.  Kent,  43  Mich. 

292,  494 

National  Bank  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  21  Ohio  St.  221,  473 

National  Banky.Lemke(N.Dak.), 
'    54  N.  W.  R.  919,  1081 

National  Bank  y.  Lock,  132  Ind. 

424,  1229 

National  Bank  y.  Mills,  99  N.  Y. 

656,  S.  C.  2  N.  E.  R.  27,  516 

National  Bank  v.   Price,  33  Md. 

487,  307 


TABLE    OF    ('ASES. 


CXClll 


[Referoices  are  to  Pages,  Vi>l.  I,  pp 
National  Hank  v.  Rogers,  12  •Minn. 

o2!»,  ()04 

National    Banking,    etc.,   Co.    v. 

Knani),  oo  .Mo.  154,  2o4,  1188 

National    Hank  of   Coinnieire   v. 

Huntington,  12!»  Mass.  444,  440 

National  liroadwavHank  v. Leslie, 

31  Fla.  oti,  S.  C.  \-2  So.  R.  o2o,      1048 
National   Cash    Register    Co.    v. 

Hlnnienthal,  85  Mich.  4()4,  812 

National  Copper  Co.  v.  Minnesota 

Mining  Co.,  57  Mich.  83,  S.  C. 

58  .\ni.  R.  333,  S.  C.  23  N.  AV. 

R.  7S1,  390 

National,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clarkin,  14 

Cal.  544,  485 

National  ExchangeBank  v.AVhite, 

30  Fe.l.  R.  412,  1050 

National   Ins.  Co.  v.  Chamber  of 

Coinnierce,  69  111.  22,  435 

National  Refining  Co.  v.  IMiller,  1 

S.  Dak.  548,  S.  C.  47  N.  AV.  R. 

5»<i2,  1091 

National  Union  Bank  v.  Brainerd 

(Vt.),  2()  Atl.  R.  723,  472 

National  Water  Works  Co. v.  Kan- 
sas City  School  District,  23  Mo. 

App.  227,  1040 

Nations  v.  Johnson,  24  How.  195, 

276,  315 
Naugle  V.  State,  101  Ind.  284,  718 

Nave  V.  Lane,  12  Ind.  318,  635 

Nave  V.  Nave,  12  Ind.  1,  1156 

Nave  V.  Williams,  22  Ind.  368,        517 
Nay  V.  Bvers,  13  Ind.  412,  1229 

Nave  V.  Noe/.el,  50  N.  J.  L.  523,      609 
Naylor  v.  Cox,  114  Mo.  232,  S.  C. 

21  S.  AV.  R.  589,  1168 

Naylor  v.  Moodv,  2  Blackf.  247,     1238 
Nazro  v.  Cragin,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  474,      "  239 

Neagle,  In  re,  14  Saw.    (IT.  S.  C. 

Cl  232,  S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  78,  137 

Neagle,  In  re,  39  Fed.  R.  833,  S. 

C.  135  U.  S.  1,  137,  298 

Neal  V.  Field,  68  Ga.  534,  347 

Neal  V.  Mills,  5  Blkf.  208,  1155 

Neal  V.  Shinn,  49  Ark.  227,  S.  C. 

4  S.  W.  R.  771,  1,53 

Nealis  v.  Dick.s,  72  Ind.  374,     136,  290 
NealU'v   v.    Crenough,   25  N.  H. 

325, '  506 

Nealon  v.  People,  39  111.  App.  481,  652 
Nearhoff  v.  Addleman,  31  Pa.  St. 

279,  551 

Neaj-ing  v.  Bell,  5  Hill,  291,  692 

Nebraska,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Maxon,  23 

Neb.  224,  S.C.  36N.W.R.  492,        237 
Needham  v.  Gillaspv,  49  Ind.  245, 
M  "  184,  1191 


.  J-h-ij'J,  T 'o/.  //,  pp .  GO 3-1 244.] 
Needham    v.   Salt    Lake,    etc.,    7 

Utah  3)9,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  920,     318 
Neel    v.   McKlhenny,   69   Pa.  St. 

300,  372 

Neenan  v.  Donoghue,  50  Mo.  493,  40«) 
Neff  v.  Beauchamp,  74  la.  92,  287 

Neff  v.    Cincinnati,  32   Ohio   St. 

215,  (;79 

Neff  V.  Reed,  9S  Ind.  341,  814,  1158 
Negley  v.  Farrow,  60  Md.  158,  S. 

C.  45  .\m.  Rep.  715.  .540,  .544 

Neglev  V.  Stewart,  10  Serg.  ct  R. 

(Pa.)  207,  594 

Neib  V.  Hinderer,  42  Mich.  451,  .596 
Neider  v.  Reuff,  29  W.  Va.  751,  S. 

C.  6  Xm.  St.  R.  676,  25)0 

Neidig  v.  Cole,  13  Neb.  39,  818 

Neier  v.  Mis.sonri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

12  Mo.  Ai)p.  25,  .546 

Neier  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

(Mo.),  1  S.  W.  R.  387,  1162 

Neil  v.Case,  25  Kan.  510,  S.  C.37 

Am.  R.  259,  .532 

Neil  V.  Thorn,  88  N.  Y.  270,  784 

Neilley,  Matter  of,  95  N.  Y.  390,  376 
Neilson   v.    Chicago,   etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  .58  Wis.  516'^  814 

Neilson  v.  Commercial,  etc.,  Co., 

3  Duer  455,  1139 

Neilson  v.  Harford,  8  Mees.  &  W. 

823,  536,  .538 

Neiser  v.  Thomas,  99  Mo.  224,  269,  478 
Neisler  v.  Harris,  115  Ind.  .560, 

542,  1148 
Neiswender  V.James, 41  Kan. 463,  1134 
Nelling  v.  Industrial,  etc.,  Co.,  78 

Ga.  2(i0,  1123 

Nelms  V.  State,  13  S.  &  M.  (IMiss.) 

500,  1125 

Nelson,  Ex  parte,  62  Ala.  376,  1239 
Nelson  v.  Boynton,  54  Ala.  368,  116 
Nell  V.  Davton,  47  Minn.  257,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  981,  1S.5 

Nelson  v.  Dodge,  116  ^lass.  367.  1077 
Nelson  v.  Iverson,  24  Ala.  9,  S.  C. 

60  Am.  Dec.  442.  801 

Nelson  v.  Jenks,  51  Minn.  108,  S. 

C.  52N.  W.  R.  1081,  605 

Nelson  v.  Petersen,  82  la.' 739,  S. 

C.  47  N.  W.  R.  1003,        "  1236 

Nelson  v.  Plimpton  I^levatingCo., 

55  N.  Y.  484,  405 

Nelson  v.  Potter,  50  N.  J.  L.  324,  284 
Nelson  v.  Ronntree,  23  Wis.  367,  445 
Nelson  v.  State,  32  Fla. ,  S.  C. 

13,  So.  R.  361,  806 

Nelson  v.Vorce,  55  Inil.  4.55,  516,  1070 
Nepean  v.  Doe,  2  M.  c'i  W.  894,  371 
Nephi.   etc.,   Co.    v.    Jenkin.s,    8 

Utah  369,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  986,    1144 


CXCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Neppach  v.  Jordan,   15  Ore.  308, 

S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  353,  536 

Nesbit  V.  Donald,  86  Ga.  26,  S.  C. 

12  S.  E.  R.  183,  112 
Nesbit  V.  Kerr,  3  Yeates(Pa.)  194,  813 
Nesbitt  V.  Citv  of  Greenville,  69 

Miss.  22,  S.  0. 30  Am.  St.  R.  521,  549 
Nesbitt  V.  Dallam,   7    Gill   &  J. 

(Md.)  494,  723 

Netso  V.  Foss,  21  Fla.  143,  1194 

Nettletonv.  Gridlev,  21  Conn.  531, 

S.  0. 56  Am.  Dec.*^378,  588, 589, 591 
Nettleton  v.  Mosier,  3  Fed.  R.  387,  314 
Neubacher  v.  Indianapolis,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  134  Ind.  25,  S.  C.  33 

N.  E.  R.  798,  1056 

Neuborn  v.  Bronson,13  N.  Y.  587,  281 
Neuerv.  O'Fallon,  18, Mo.  277,  S. 

C.  59  Am.  Dec.  313,  471 

Neufeld   v.    Rediminski,    41   111. 

App.  144,  1225 

Neufelder  v.   German   American 

Ins.  Co.  (Wash.),   33  Pac.   R. 

870,  471 

Nevan  v.  Roup,  8  la.  207,  513 

Neven  v.  Burke,  82  Ind.  455,  1219 
Neves  v.  Scott,  13  How.   (U.  S.) 

268,  270,  1128 

New  V.  Walker,  108 Ind.  365,  302, 304 
New  Albanv,  City  of  ,v.  Ray,  3  Ind. 

App.  321,'S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  611,  1056 
New  Albany  v.  White,  100  Ind. 

206,  484,  1212 

New  Albanv,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Combs, 

13  Ind.  490,  614,  615 
New  Albany,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Day,  117 

Ind.  337,  '  1168 

New  Albany,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Huff,  19 

Ind.  444,  262 

New  Albanv  &   S.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Grooms,  9  Ind.  243,  435,  436,  441 
Newark  v.  Funk,  15  Ohio  St.  462,  472 
Newark  v.  Perry  Co.,  30  Ohio  St. 

120,  1137 

Newark  v.  Stout,  52  N.  J.  L.  35,  S. 

C.  18  Atl.  R.  943,  527 

Newark,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mayor,  8  C. 

E.  Green  515,  1128 

Newark,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Perry  Co.,  30 

Ohio  St.  120,  1139 

Newbery  v.  Furnival,  56  N.  Y. 

6.38,  152,  1131 

Newbv  V.  Colt's  Pat.,  etc.,  Co.,  L. 

R.  1  Q.  B.  293,  442 

Newby  v.  Myers,  44  Kan.  477, 

104,  1148 
Newcomb,  In  re,  18  N.  Y.  Supp. 

16,  642 

Newcomb  v.  Griswold,  24  N.  Y. 

298,  798 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Newcomb  v.  Newcomb,  13  Bush 

544,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R,  222, 

221  321  330 
Newcomb  v.  Wood,  97  U.'s.  581,  '  592 
Newcome  v.  Light,  58  Tex.  141,  S. 

C.  44  Am.  R.  604,  216,  218 

Newcomb's    Lessee    v.   Smith,  5 

Ohio,  447,  181 

Newell  V.  Downs,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

523,  544 

Newell  V.  Gatling,  7  Ind.  147,       1188 
Newell  V.  Giggev,   13  Col.  16,  S. 

C.  21  Pac.  R.  904,  310 

Newell  V.  Meyendorff,    9  Mont. 

254,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  333,  180 

Newell  V.  Newell,  9  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

25,  810 

Newell  V.  Smith,  49  Vt.  255,  495 

New  Eng.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starin,  60 

Conn.  369,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  953, 

429,  611 
Newhall  v.  Sanger,  92  U.  S.  761,  139 
New  Haven  V.  AVhitnev,  36  Conn. 

373,  '  258 

New  Haven,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fowler, 

28  Conn.  103,  197 

New  Haven  Wire  Company  Cases, 

57  Conn.  352,  S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A. 

300,  194 

New  Home,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wray,  29 

S.  Car.  86,  305 

Newhouse  v.  Miller,  35  Ind.  463, 

1215 
New  Jersev,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Suvdam, 

17  N.  J.  L.  25,  317 
New  Jersey  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Baker, 

94  U.  S.  610,  1068 

New  Jersey  R.  &  T.  Co.  v.  West, 

33N.  J.L.  430,  1045 

New    Jersey    Steamboat    Co.    v. 

New  York,  109  N.  Y.  621,  525 

Newlin's  Petition,  123  Pa.  St.  541, 

S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  737,  630 

Newlon  v.  Tyner,  128  Ind.  466,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  168,  720,  1218, 1219 
New  London,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Boston, 

etc.,  Co.,  102  Mass.  .386,  338 

Newlove    v.   Woodward,   9  Neb. 

502,  1157 

Newman's  Estate, 75  Cal.  213,  S.  C. 

7  Am.  St.  R.  146,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R. 

887,  184, 287,  291,  444,  445, 450, 1188 
Newman's  Lessee  v.  Cincinnati, 

18  Ohio  323,  448,1189 
Newman   v.   Chapman,   2   Rand. 

(Va.)  93,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  774, 

498  499 
Newman  v.  Greeff,  101  N.  Y.  663,' 

S.  C.  5  N.  E.  R.  .335.  1063 

Newman  v.  Hazelrigg,  96  Ind.  73,     627 


TAHLK    OF    CASES. 


CXCV 


[Beferences  are  to  Piujcs,  V(A.  I,  pp 
Newman  v.  Manning,  89  Ind.  422,     474 
Newman  v.  MfCJregor,  5  Oliio84y,     399 
Newman    v.   Tieruan,   37     Barb. 

159,  215 

Newman  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  R.  Co., 

50  N.  Y.  i^uper.  Ct.  412,  810 

Newmarket  ^ilg.  Co.  v.  Pender- 

grast,  24  N.  II.  54,  551 

New    Orleans    v.    Hemphill,    35 

Miss.  17,  276 

New  Orleans  v.  Scalzo,  41  La  Ann. 

1141,  332 

New  Orleans  Ins.  Assn.  v.  Mat- 
thews, 65  Miss.  301,  S.  C.  4  So, 

R.  G2,  557 

New  Orleans  Water  Works  Co., 

V.   Louisiana    Sugar,   etc.,   Co. 

125  U.  S.  18,  S.  C.  8  Sup.  Ct. 

Rep.  741,  51 

Newport  v.   Miller  (Ky.),  18  S. 

W.  R.  835,  549 

New  Salem  v.  Eagle  Mill  Co.,  138 

:Mass.  8,  370 

Newsom  v.  Board,  103  Ind.  526,  360 
Newton  v.  Boodle,  54  Eng.  Com. 

L.  795,  1240 

Newton  v.  Bronson,  13  N.  Y.  587,  280 
Newton  v.  Porter,  69  N.  Y.  133,  514 
Newton  v.  State,  21  Fla.  53,  820 

Newton  v.  Whitney,  77  Wis.  515, 

S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  882,        1158,  1165 
Newton  Man.  Co.  v.  White,  47  Ga. 

400,  490 

New  York  Baptist  Union  v.  At- 

well,  95  Mich.  339,  S.  C.  54  N. 

W.  R.  760,  447 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.Doane,  105 

Ind.  92,  1156,  1181 

New  York, etc., Co.v. Fitch,  1  Paige 

97,  480 

New  York,etc.,Co.v.  Hyde,56  Fed. 

R.  188,  1236 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jewett,  115 

N.  Y.  166,  498 

New  Y'ork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rotherv, 

112  N.  Y^  592,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R. 

546,  1243 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schneider, 

119  N.  Y.  475,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  Rep. 

4,  574,  596,  597 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schuyler, 

17N.Y.  592,     .  1216 

New  Y'ork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Simon,  53 

Fed.  Rep.  1,  608 

New^  Y'ork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  8 

Pet.  291,  1240 

New  York  c»c  T.  Land  Co.  v.  Gard- 
ner (Tex.).  25  S.  W.  R.  737,       1072 
Ney  V.  Rothe.  61  Tex.  374,  669 

Ney  V.  Swinnv,  36  Ind.  454,  322 


1-fJO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Niagra,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lee,  73  Tex. 

641,  1162 

Niblack  v.  Goodman,  67  Ind.  174, 

377,  383 
Niboyet  v.  Niboyet,  L.  R.  4  P.  D. 

1,  2t»5 

Nichols  V.  Bridgeport,  27   Conn. 

45i>,  1222 

Nichols  V.  Hail,  4  Neb.  210,  531 

Nichols  V.  Lee,  10  Mich.  526,  318 

Nichols  V.  Nichols,  96  Ind.  433,  455 
Nichols  V.  Patten,  18  Me.  231,  S. 

C.  36  Am.  Dec.  713,  455 

Nichols  V.  State,  28  Tex.  App.  105, 

S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  500,  307 

Nichols  V.  Stewart,  20  Ala.  358,  806 
Nidiols,  etc.  Co.  v.  Metzger,  43 

Mo.  App.  007,  230 

Nicholson  v.  Desobrs",  14  La.  Ann. 

81,  ■  509 

Nicholson  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  41  N. 

Y.  525,  369 

Nicholson  v.  Karpe,  58  Miss.  34,  34 
Nicholson  v.  Nicholson,  113  Ind. 

131,  1201 

Nicholson    v.    Showalter    (Tex.), 

18  S.  W.  R.  326,  220 

Nickelson  v.  Smith,  15  Ore.  200, 

1111,1117,1121 
Nickerson  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co., 

30  Fed.  R.  85,  1128 

Nickerson  v.   Chase,    122    Mass. 

296,  471 

Nickless  v.  Pearson,  126  Ind.  477, 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  478, 

542,  1061,  1176 
Nickum  v.  Gaston  (Ore.),  35  Pac. 

R.  31,  1080 

Nicol  V.  Vaughan,  2  Dow.  &  C. 

420,  1128 

Niemever  v.  Brooks.  44  111.  77,  392 
Nietert  v.  Trentman,  104  Ind.  390, 

S.  C.  4  N.  E.  R.  306,  455 

Niland  v.  Murphy,  73  Wis.  326,  S. 

C.  41  N.  W.  R."335,  390 

Nimmon  v.  Worthington,  1   Ind. 

376,  620 

Nimocks  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  Co., 

110  N.  Car.  230,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R. 

622,  180 

Nims  V.  Nims,  20  Fla.  204,  201 

Ninde  v.  Clarke.  62  :Mich.  124,  S. 

C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  823,  190 

Nispel  V.  Laparle,  74  111.  306.  1178 
Niswanger  v.  Saunders,  1  Wall. 

424,    ^  251 

Nixon  V.  Beard,  111  Ind,  137,  179,  791 
Nixon  V.  Downey,  42  la.  78,  442.  1170 
Nixon  V.  Town  of  Biloxi  (^liss.), 

5  So.  R.  621,  543 


CXCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Befere7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Noaker  v.  3Iorey,  30  Ind.  103,       1092 
Noble  V.  Bellows,  53  Vt.  527,  362 

Noble  V.  Crandall,49  Hun  (N.Y.) 

474,  614 

Noble  V.  Enos,  19  Ind.  72,  1087 

Noble  V.  Thompson  Oil  Co.,  79  Pa. 

St.  354,  S.  C.  21  Am.  R.  66,  473 

Nobles  V.  Hogg,  36  S.  Car.  322,  S. 

C. 15  S.  E.  R.  359,  372 

Noblesville  v.  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co., 

130  Ind.  1,  59 

Noblesville,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Gause, 
■    76  Ind.  142,  l^'Q 

Noblesville,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Loehr, 

124  Ind.  79,  1106,  1107 

Nofsinger  v.   Ring.   4  Mo.   App. 

576,  531 

Noke  V.  Ingham,  1  Wils.  89,  1194 

Nolan  V.  nT  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  53 
Conn.  461,  S.  C.  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Cas.  342,  546 

Nolan  V.  State,  2  Head  (Tenn.) 

520,  668 

NoUen  v.  Wisner,  11  la.  190,         1068 
Nonce  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  33 

Fed.  R.  429,  310,  373 

Noodriff  v.  Stewart,  63  Ala.  206,      241 
Nooe  V.  Higdon,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

184,  521 

Noonan  v.   Caledonia  Gold,  etc., 

Co.,  121  U.  S.  393,  1206 

Noonan  v.  Lee,  2  Blackf.  499,        1128 
Noonan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

68  Hun  387,  1048 

Norberg  v.  Heineman,   59  Mich. 

210,  605 

Norberg's  Case,  4  Mass.  81,     741,  799 
Norbury  v.  Meade,  3  Bligh  261, 

254,  1178 
Norce  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  33 

Fed.  R. 469,  304 

Nordyke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dickson,  76 

Ind.  188,  1193 

Nordvke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Van  Sant, 

99  ind. 188,  1026,  1055 

Norfolk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Postal,  etc., 
Co.,  88  Va.  920,  S.  C.  14  S.  E. 
R.  689,  304 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son (Va.),  17  S.  E.  R.  757,  722 
Norlinger  v.  De  Mier,  54  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  276,  605 

Norman  v.  Heist,  5  W.  &  S.  171,  117 
Norman  v.  Morrell,  4  Ves.  769,  538 
Norman  v.  Winch,  65  la.  263,  390 

Norris'  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  106,  363 
Norris  v.  Chambers,  29  Beav.246, 

283 
Norris  v.  Dodge,  23  Ind.  190,  1195 
Norris  v.  Gawtry,  Hob.  R.  139,       379 


721 


407 


,  2-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Norris  v.  Jackson,  9  Wall.  125,        1138 
Norris  v.  Milwaukee  Dock  Co.,  21 

Wis.  130,  393 

Norris  v.  Norris,  3  Ind.  App.  500, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1014,  572 

Norris  v.  Watson,  2  Foster  (N.H.) 

364,  467 

Norristown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burket,  26 

Ind.  53,  644 

North  V.  James,  61  Miss.  761,  381 

North  V.  McDonald,  1  Biss.  57,        464 
North  V.  Mooi-e,  8  Kan.  143,  428 

North  V.  Mudge,  13  la.  496,  S.  C. 

81  Am.  Dec.  441,  1178 

North  V.  Peters,  138  U.  S.  271,  S. 

C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  346,  1151 

North  Am.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dyett,  2 

Edw.  Ch.  115,  1210 

Northampton  v.  Smith,    11   Met. 

395,  219 

Northampton  Bank  v.  Bulliet,  8 
Watts  &  S.  311,  S.  C.  42  Am. 
Dec.  297, 
Northampton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parnell, 
15C.  B.  630,  S.  C.  24L.J.C.P. 
60, 
North  Bloomfield,  etc.,Co.v.  Key- 

ser,  58  Cal.  315,  214,  219 

North  Car.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swasey, 

23  Wall.  405,  1187 

North  Chicago  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams, 140  111.  275,  S.  C.  29  N.  E. 
R.  672,  557 

Northcutt  v.  Buckles,  60  Ind.  577, 

1132,1143,1163,1184 
Northcutt  V.  Lemery,  8  Ore.  316,  449 
Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ellis,  144  U. 

S.  458,  1178 

Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Scholl,  16 

Md.  331,  310 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mares, 
123  U.  S.  710,  S.  C.  8  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  321,  1052 

Northern  Pac.R.R.Co.v.  Charless, 
51  Fed.  R.  562, 

1039,  1045,  1052,  1224 
Northern  Pac.  R.R.  Co.  v.  Conger, 

56  Fed.  R.  20,  1055 

North  Hudson  B.  &  L.  Assn.  v. 
Childs,  82  Wis.  460,  S.  C.  52  N. 
W.  R.  600,  349 

Northington    v.     State,     14    Lea 

(Tenn.)  424,  .  821 

North  L.  R.  Co.  v.  McGrann,  33 

Pa.  St.  530,  408 

North  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
mercial Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  S. 
C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  266,  1053,  1055 

North  Vernon  v.  Voegler,  103  Ind. 
314,  368,  370,  390 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCVll 


lEeferenccs  arc  to  Panes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Northwestern    lienevolent,    etc., 

Assn.    V.    Woods,  21    111.  Aj)p. 

372,  611 

Northwestern,     etc.,      Assn.      v. 

Primm,  124  111.  100,  S.  C.  16  N. 

E.  R.  98,  618 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v. 

McCue,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  508,       535 
Northwestern    Life    Ins.    Co.   v. 

Muskegon  Bank,  122  U.  S.  501, 

534 
Northwestern  Mnt.  Fire  Ins.  Co. 

V.  Hlankenship,  94  Ind.  535,       1097 
Northwestern  Mat.  Life  Ins.  Co. 

V.  Bank,  122  U.  S.  501,  S.  C.  25 

C.  L.  J.  300,  1064 

Norton  v.  Clark,  18  Nev.  247,  471 

Norton  v.  Cook,  9  Conn.  314,  S. 

C.  23  Am.  Dec.  342,  285 

Norton  v.  EUam,  2  M.  &  W.  461, 

360 
Norton  v.  Hall,  41  Vt.  471,  364 

Norton  v.  Heywood,  20  Me.  359,  507 
Norton  v.  Lareo,  30  Cal.  127,  S.  C. 

89  Am.  Dec.  70,  361 

Norton  v.  Mascall,  2  Vern.  24,  598 
Norton  v.  Norton,  5  Cush.  524,  274 
Norton  v.  Norton,  43  Ohio  St.  509, 

471 
Norton  v.  Sanders,  1  Dana  14,  370 
Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  U. 

S.  425,  116,  120,  214 

Norton  v.  State,  98  Ind.  347,  1072 

Norton  v.  State,  106  Ind.  163, 

625,  1212 
Northrop  v.  Hill,  61  Barb.  136,  369 
Northrop  v.  Hill,  57  N.  Y.  351,  369 
Northrop  v.AVright,  24  Wend.  221, 

1158 
Northrup  v.  People,  37  N.  Y.  203, 

147,  152 
Norval  v.  Rice,  2  Wis.  22,  643 

Norvell  v.  Deval,  50  Mo.  272,  S.  C. 

11  Am.  R.  413,  1117 

Norvell  v.  Lessueur,  33  Gratt.  222, 

274 
Norwegian  Street,  In  re,  81  Pa. 

St.  349,  298 

Norwich,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cahill, 

18  Conn.  484,  1159 

Norwood  V.  Gonzales  Co.,  79  Tex. 

218,  381 

Norwood  V.  Kenfield,  34  Cal.  329, 

138.  139,  142,  155 
Norwood  V.  Somerville,  159  Mass. 

105,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  1108, 

1064,  1065 
Notama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clarkin,  14 

Cal.  544,  301 

Nowling  V.  Mcintosh,  89  Ind.  593,    352 


.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.1 
Noyes  v.  Butler,  6  Barb.  013,  326 

Noves   V.  Clark,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

179,  S.  C.  32  An).  Dec.  620,  404 

Noyes  v.  Could,  57  N.  H.  20,  601 

Noyes  v.  Marsh,  123  Mass.  286,  587 
Noyes  V.  Newinarch,  1  .\llen  51,  1191 
Noves  V.  Parker,  64  Vt.  379,  S.  C. 

24  Atl.  R.   12,  1070 

Noves'   Will,  In  re,  61  Vt.  14,  S. 

C.  17  Atl.  R.  743,  540 

Nuckols  V.  .Jones,  8  Gratt,  267,  1161 
Nudd  V.  Burrows,  91  I'.  S.  426,  1061 
Nudd  V.  Haniblin,  8  Allen  130,  367 
Nu<ld  V.  Wells,  11  Wis.  407,  554 

Nueva  Anna,  (>  AVheat.  193,  116 

Nueent  V.  Smith,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  D. 

428,  997 

Nugent  V.  Stark,  34  La.  Ann.  628, 

224  237 
Nunan  v.  Valentine,  83  Cal.  588,' 

S.  C.  23  Pac.  K.  713,  1137 

Nunez  v.  Dautel,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

560,  554 

Nunn  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.  31  Neb. 

39,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  467,  393 

Nunn  V.  Sturges,  22  Ark.  389,  315 

Nunnery  v.  Day,  64  Miss.  457,  363 
Nurnev  v.  Firemen's  Ins.  Co.,  63 

i\Iich.  6.33,  588 

Nusbaum  v.  Stein,  12  Md.  315,  195 
Nute  V.  Brvant,  31  Me.  553,  520 

Nute  V.  Nute,  41  N.  H.  60,  .549,  802 
Nutter  V.  Railroad  Co.,  131  Mass. 

231,  472 

Nutter  V.  Houston,  42  ]Mo.  App. 

363,  173 

Nutting  V.  Losance,  27  Ind.  37,  12.30 
Nvce  V.  Hamilton,  90  Ind.  417,  289 
Nve  V.  Kellam.  IS  Vt.  594,  183 

Nye  v.  Lewis,  65  Ind.  326,  1237 

Nve  v.  Liscombe,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 

263,  613 

Nve  v.  :Manwell,  14  Vt.  14,  1115 

Nve  V.  Moodv.  70  Tex.  434,  S.  C. 

8  S.  W.  R.  606,  1190 


o 


Oakes  V.Thornton,  28  N.H.  44,  104.3 
Oakley  v.  Anderson,  93  N.  Car. 

108,  ,591 

Oaklev  v.  Aspinwall,  4  N.  Y.  514,  443 
Oaklev  v.  Aspinwall,  3  N.  Y.  547,  218 
Oaklev  v.  Dunn,  (53  Mich.  494,  S. 

C.  30  N.  W.  R.  96,  638 

Oaklev  v.  Patterson  Bank,  2  N.  J. 

Eq.  173,  494 

Oakwood,   etc.,    Assn.    v.    Rath- 
borne,  65  Wis.  177,  407 


cxcvni 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


lUeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Oatman  v.  Andrew,  43  Vt.  466,       510 
Oatman  v.  AValker,  33  Me.  67,         400 
Obaugh  V.  Finn,  4  Ark.  110,  S.  C. 

37  Am.  Dec.  773,  1035 

Obear  v.  Grav,  68  Ga.  182, 

1119,  1123,  1124 
Obenchain  v.   Comegys,  15  Ind. 

496,  185 

Ober  V.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  13 

Mo.  App.  81,  1235 

Oberfelder  V.  Kavanaugh,  29  Neb. 

427,  S.  C.  45  N.  AV.  R.  471,  1230 

Obemiann  Brewing  Co.  v.  Ohlerk- 

ing,  33  111.  App.  20,  413 

Obefnalte  v.  Edgar,  28  Neb.  70,  S. 

C.  44  N.  W.  R.  82,  180,  737 

O'Brien  v.  Gaslin,  20  Neb.  347,  436 
O'Brien  v.  Moss,  131  Ind.  99,  137 

O'Brien  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Co.,  17 

Conn.  372,  483 

O'Brien  v.  People,  3  Abb.  Pr.  N. 

S.  368,  S.  C.  36  N.  Y.  270,      657,  662 
O'Brien  v.  Sexton,  140  111.  517,  S. 

C.30N.  E.  R.  461,  303 

O'Brien  v.  Shaw's  Flat,  10  Cal.  343,  440 
O'Brien  v.  Vulcan  Iron  Works,  7 

Mo.  App.  257,  667 

O'Bryan  v.  Allen,  95  Mo.  68,  697 

O'Brvan  v.  Glenn,  91  Tenn.  106, 

S.  C.  30  Am.  St.  R.  862,  354 

O'Callaghan  v.  Bode,  84  Cal.  489, 

S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  269,  1232 

Ochus  V.  Sheldon,  12  Fla.  138,  218 
O'Connell  v.  Gavett,  7  Col.  40,  640 
O'Conner  v.  Huggins,  113  N.  Y. 

511,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  184,  262 

O'Connor  v.  Guthrie,  11  la.  80,  1077 
O'Connor  v.  Koch,   56  Mo.   253, 

1157,  1211 
O'Connor  v.  Le  Roux,  78  Mich. 

48,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1084,  531 

O'Connor  v.  Wilson,  57  111.  226, 

435,  436 
O'Dea  V.  O'Dea,  101  N.  Y.  23,  287 

Odell  V.    Campbell,   9   Ore.   298, 

446,  447 
Odell  V.  DeWitt,  53  N.  Y.  643,  298 
Odell  V.  Hart,  1  Moll.  492,  1216 

Odeneal  v.  Henry,  70  Miss.  172, 

S.  C.  12  So.  R.  154,  1071 

Odiorne  v.  Colley,  2  N.  H.  66,  S. 

C.  9  Am.  Dec.  39,  198 

O'Donnell  v.  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  R. 

R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  R. 689,  608 

O'Donald    v.   Constant,   82    Ind. 

212,  353 

O'Donnell  v.  Segar,  25  Mich.  367,     712 
Odum  V.  Rutledge  &  .1.  R.  R.  Co., 
94  Ala.  488,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  222, 

400,  404 


,  1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Oelrichs  v.  Spain,  15  AVall.  211,       301 
Offord  V.  Davies,  12  C.  B.  N.  S. 

748,  412 

Officer  V.  Young,  5  Yerg.  320,      ^    121 
O'Gara   v.   Eisenhour,   38  N.   Y. 

296,  102 

Ogden  V.  Forney,  33  la.  205,  592 

Ogden  V.  Gibbons,  5-N.  J.  L.  518, 

618 
Ogden  V.  Kip,  6  John.  Ch.  160,  480 
Ogden  V.  Robertson,  15  N.  J.  L. 

124,  172,  173 

Ogden  V.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.213, 

202,  285,  411 
Ogden  V.  Walters,  12  Kan.  282, 

341,  345,  445 
Ogilvie  V.  Knox,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Black 

539,  1187 

Ogle  V.  Dill,  61  Ind.  438, 

1089,  1095,  1155 
Ogle  V.  Edwards,  133  Ind.  358,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  95,  633,  034 

Ogle  V.  State,  33  Miss.  383,  661 

O'Hagen    v.    O'Hagen,    14   la. 

264,  255 

O'Hara  v.  Richardson,  46  Pa.  St. 

385,  551 

O'Hare  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
139  111.  151,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R. 
923,  663 

Ohio  V.  CoAvles,  5  Ohio  St.  87,        1199 
Ohio  &  Miss.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Collarn, 

73  Ind.  261,  547 

Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Buck,  130 

Ind.300,  S.C.  30N.E.R.19,       1070 
Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Craucher, 

132  Ind.  275,  1075 

Ohio  &  Miss.  Rv.  Co.  v.  McCart- 
ney, 121  Ind.  385,  1080,  1165 
Ohio&M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ramy,  139 

111.  9,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1087,       1092 
Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Selby,  47 

Ind.  471,  1098 

Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,  5 
Ind.  App.  560,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 
809,  1096,  1208 

Ohio  &  Miss.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Stans- 
berry,  132  Ind."  533,  S.  C.  32  N. 
E.  R.  218,  1090 

Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Thillman, 
143  111.  127",  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 
529,  1068 

Ohio'&  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Trapp,  4 
Ind.  App.  69.  S.C.  30N.  E.  R. 
812,  1090 

Ohio'&  M.    R.  R.  Co.  v.  Trow- 
bridge, 120  Ind.  391,  1097 
Ohio  &  M.  R.  Co.  V.  Wachter,  123 
111.  440,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  279, 

109,  110 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCIX 


[Beferences  are  to  Payes,  Vul.  /,  pp 
Ohio  cSc  M.  R.    R.  Co.  v.  Webb, 

142  111.  404,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

527,  1066 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  23 

Ind.  553,  495 

Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kuhn  (Ky.),  5 

S.  W.  R.  419,  11(36 

Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schultz,  31  Ind. 

150,  317 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Palm,  18 

111.  22,  620 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Walker, 

113  Ind.  196,  712 

Ohio  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gibbens, 

35  W.  Va.  57,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R. 

1093,  115 

Ohio  Southern, etc.,  Co.  v.  Morev, 

47  Ohio  St.   207,  S.  C.  7  L.  R. 

Anno.  701,  333,611 

Ohm's  Estate,  In  re,  82  Cal.  160, 

S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  927,  254,  1184 

Oil  Co.  v.Van  Etten,  107  U.  S.  325,  556 
O'Kelly  V.  Territory,  1  Ore.  51,  161 
O'Keson   v.  Barclay,    2  Pcur.    & 

W.  531,  "  584 

Old  v.  Mohler,  122  Ind.  594, 

321,  1196,  1209 
Old  Colonv   Co.    v.    Wilder,    137 

Mass.  536,  1138,  1139 

Old   Dominion,   etc.,  Co.  v.  31c- 

Kenna,  30  Fed.  R.  48,  483 

Old  Hickory,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Blever, 

74  Ga.  20i,  '        476 

01denl)erg  v.  Devine,   40  Minn. 

409,  S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  88,  1202 

Oldfield  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

14  N.  Y.  310,  529 

Oldham  v.  Scrivener,  3  B.  Mon. 

579,  198,  469 

Olds  v.  State,  6  Blkf.  91,  346 

Olds  Wasron  Co.  v.  Benedict,   25 

Neb.  372,  S.C.  41  N.AV.R.  254,  1231 
O'Learv  v.  Burns,  53  ]Miss.  171,  361 
O'Leary  v.  Iskey,  12  Neb.  136,  112 
Oliphant  v.  Atchison  Co.,  18  Kan. 

386,  324,  1146 

Oliphant  v.  Whitney,  34  Cal.  25,  1195 
Olive  v.  Olive,  95  N.  Car.  485,  796 

Olive  v.  State,  11  Neb.  1,  1074 

Oliver  v.  Berrv,  53  Me.  206,  381 

Oliver  v.  Smith.  5  Mass.  18;>,  198 

Oliver  v.  Town,  24  Wis.  512,  1240 

Olivier  v.  Cnnnineham,  51  Minn. 

232,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  4(52,  626, 628 
011am  V.  Shaw,  27  Ind.  388, 

173,  189,  1088 
Ollis  V.  Kirkpatrick,2  Idaho  976, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  435,  183 

Olmstead    v.   Koester,   14    Kan. 

463,  489,  491 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.'] 
Olmsteafl  v.  Loomis,  9  N.  Y.  423,     483 
Olmstead   v.    Winsted   Bank,  32 

Conn.  278,  S.  C.   85  Am.  Dec. 

2(50,  794 

Olmstead's  Appeal,  43  Conn.  110,     314 
Olson  v.  Brown,  50  Minn.  353,  S. 

C.  16  L.  R.  A.  (i91,  1129 

Olvey  V.  Jackson,  106  Ind.  286, 

yof>    392 

Omaha  v.  Aver,  32  Neb.  375,  S.  C.' 

49  N.  W\  it.  445,  547 

Omaha  v.  Cane,  15  Neb.  657,  658 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.  v.  Cook 

(Neb.),  55  N.  W.  R.  943,  659 

Omaha,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Fay  (Neb.), 

55N.  W.  R.  211,  714 

Omaha  &  F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Han- 
sen, 32  Neb.  449,  S.  C.  49  N.  W. 

R.  456,  1080 

Omaha  v.  01m.stead,  5  Neb.  446,      654 
Omaha,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  O'Neill, 

81  la.  463,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R. 

1100,  632,  637 

Omaha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tabor,  13  Col. 

41,  S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  185,     799,  802 
Omaha   S.  R.  Co.  v.   Beeson,  36 

Neb.  361, 'S.  C.  54  N.AV.  R.  .557,     816 
O'Mallev  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R. 

Co.,  113  Mo.  319,  S.  C.  20  S.  W. 

R.  1079,  1053 

O'Mallev  v.  Reese,  1  Barb.  643,      299 
O'Mahoney  v.  Belmont,  62  N.  Y, 

133,  497 

O'Marav.  CommonAvealth,  75  Pa. 

St.  424,  660 

Omj'chund  v.  Barker,  1  Atk.  21, 

724,  962 
O'Neal  V.  Blessing,  34  Ohio  St.  33,  333 
O'Neal  V.  State,  47  Ga.  229,  1160 

O'Neil  V.  O'Neil.  54  Cal.  187,  627 

O'Neil  V.  State,  48  Ga.  66,  1071 

O'Neill  V.  James,  43  N.  Y.  84,        1045 
O'Neill   V.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

115N.  Y.  579,  1206 

Oney  v.  Clendenin,   28  W.   Va. 

34,  1157 

Onion  v.  Robinson,  15  Vt.  510,        595 
Onstatt  V.  Ream,  30  Ind.  259,  S. 

C.  95  Am.  Dec.  695,  1231 

Oothout  V.  Thompson,  20  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  277,  385 

Opdvke  V.  Stephens,  28  N.  J.  L. 

83",  533 

Ophir,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  6 

Nev.  393,  112 

Orange  Bank  v.  Brown,  3  Wend. 

158,  980 

Orcutt  V.  Hanson.  71  la.  514,  S.C. 

32  N.  W.  R.  482,  304 

Orcutt  V.  Rannev,  10  Cush.  183,      276 


cc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Ord  V.  Ruspini,  2  Esp.  569,  375 

Ordwav  v.  Haynes,  50  N.  H.  159,      803 
Ordwav  v.   Remington,  12   R.  I. 

319,  S.  C.  34  Am.  R.  646,  472 

Orear  v.  Cloiigh,  52  Mo.  55,  609 

Oregon,  etc.,  Bank  v.  American 

Mortg.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  22,  587 

Oregon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gates,  10  Ore. 

514,  473 

Oregon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Barlow, 

3  Ore.  311,  679 

Oregonian  Rv.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oregon 

Rv.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  245,  1211 

Oregonian,  etc.,    Co.    v.   Oregon 

etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  277,  1178 

O'Reilly  v.   Campbell,  116  U.  S. 

418,  1205 

O'Reilly  v.  Kerns,  52  Pa.  St.  214,    408 
O'  Reilly   v.  Nicholson,  45    Mo. 

160,  245,342 
Origet  V.  United  States,  125  U.  S. 

940  1239 

Orleans  v.  Piatt,  99  U.  S.  676,  134 

Orman  v.  Mannix,  17  Col.  564,  S. 
N  C.  30  Pac.  R.  1037,  1209 

Ormes  v.  Dauchv,  82  N.  Y.  443,     1045 
Orne  v.  Sullivan,  3  How.  (Miss.) 

161,  S.  C.  34  Am.  Dec.  74,  587 
Orphan   Asvlum   v.  McCartee,  1 

Hopk.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  423,  494 

O'Rourke  v.  O'Rourke,  43  Mich. 

58,  915 

Orr  V.  Worden,  10  Ind.  553,  1210 

Orr,  etc..  Shoe  Co.  v.  Harris,  82 

Tex.  273,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  308, 

465 
Orthwein  v.  Thomas,  127  111.  554, 

S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  159,  361 

Ortman  v.  Dixon,  9  Cal.  23,  492 

Orvis  V.  Powell,  98  U.  S.  176,  270 

Osborn  v.  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738, 

124,  605 
Osborn  v.  Heyer,  2  Paige  342,  194 

Osborn  Co.  v.  Morris,  21  Ore.  367, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  70,  1122 

Osborn  v.  Schutt,  67  Mo.  712,  475 

Osborn  v.  Sutton,  108  Ind.  443,       322 
Osborne  V.  Colvert,  86  N.  Car.  170, 

599 
Osborne  v.  Detroit,  32  Fed.  R.  36, 

547,  812 
Osborne  v.  Graham,  30  Ark.  67,  128 
Osborne  v.  Kline,  18  Neb.  344,  S. 

C.  25  N.  W.  R.  360,  674,  675 

Osborne  v.  O'Reilly,  34  N.  J.  Eq. 

60,  790 

Osborne  v.  Prather,  83  Tex.  208, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  613,  1136 

Osborne   v.    AVilkes,  108  N.  Car. 

651,  1123 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Oscanvan  v.  Arms  Co.,  103  U.  S. 

261,"'  692,  1051,  1054 

Osceola  Tribe  v.  Schmidt,  57  Md. 

98,  588 

Osgood  V.  Blackmore,  59  111.  261,  266 
Osgood  V.  :McConnell,  32  111.  74,  1122 
Osgood  V.  Thurston,  23  Pick.  110,  255 
O'Shea  v.  White  Lead  Co.,  42  Mo. 

397,  S.  C.  97  Am.  Dec.  332,  567 

O'Sheilds  v.  State,  55  Ga.  696,  1077 
Oshoga  V.  State,  3  Chand.  (Wis.) 

57  159 

Oshoga  V.  State,  3  Pin.  (Wis.)  56,  159 
Ostertag  V.  Galbraith,  23  Neb.  730,  432 
Ostrander  v.  Hart,  130  N.  Y.  406, 

1151 
Oteiza  v.  Jacobus,  136  U.  S.  330,  133 
Ottawa  V.  Walker,  21  111.  605,  258 

Ottawa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McMath,  91 

111.  104,  1165 

Otter  Creek    Block  Coal   Co.  v. 

Ranev,  34  Ind.  329,  1091 

Otis  V.  be  Boer,  116  Ind.  531,   S. 

C.  19  N.  E.  R.  317.  133,  322,  448 

Otisv.  Epperson,  88  Mo.  131,  446,  448 
Otis  V.  Hitchcock,  6  Wend.  433,  1172 
Otisv.  Rio  Grande,  1  Woods,  279,  133 
Ott  V.  McHenry,  2  W.  Va.  73,  626 
Ott  V.  Oyer,  106  Pa.  St.  6,  1069 

Ott  V.  Schroeppel,  5  N.  Y.  482,  594 
Ott  V.  Schroeppel,  3  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

56,  597 

Ott  V.  Soulard,  9  Mo.  581,  533 

Ott    V.    Whitworth,    8    Humph. 

(Tenn.)  494,  383 

Otto  V.  Schlapkahl,  57  la.  226,  372 
Otto  V.  Trump,  115  Pa.  St.  425,  S. 

C.  —  Atl.  R.  786,  504 

Ottumwa  V.  Schaub,  52  la.  515,  134 
Outhouse  V.   Outhouse,   13    Hun 

(N.  Y.)  130,  375 

Outhwite  V.  Porter,  13  Mich.  533,  428 
Ouzts  V.  Seabrook,  47  Ga.  359,  469 
Over  V.  Schiffling,  102  Ind.  191, 

544,  714 
Overbv  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,"37  W.  Va.  524,  S.  C.  16  S.  E. 

R.  813,  1054 

Overing  v.  Foote,  65  N.  Y.  263,  425 
Overly  v.  Overly,  1  Mete.  (Ky.) 

117,"  576 

Overny  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  37  W.  Va.  524,  S.  C.  16  S. 

E.  R.  813,  7.39 

Overton  v.  Alpha, 13  La.  Ann.  558,  592 
Overton  v.  Hill,  1  Murph.  (N.  C.) 

47^  197,  198 

Overton  v.  Matthews.  35  Ark.  146,  533 
Owen  V.  Bankhead,  82  Ala.  399,  S. 

C.  3  So. R.  97,  185 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


CCl 


[References  are  to  Parjes,  Vtil.  I,  pp 
Owen  V.  Boenim,  1,'3  Harb.  (N.  Y.)  | 

187,  594,  5%  I 

Owen  V.  Frink,  24  Cal.  171,  1128 

Owen  V.  Going,  7  Col.  85,  1181 

Owen  V.  Homan,  4  H.  L.  Cases 

997,  494 

Owen  V.  Jones,  14  Ark.  502,  1158 

Owen  V.  Owen,  22  la.  270,  1064 

Owen  V.  Phillips,  73  Ind.  284,        1212 
Owen  V.  Warburton,  4  Bos.  6c  Pul. 

326,  1118 

Owens  V.  Mitchell,  33  Tex.  225,      1178 
Owens    V.   Owens,   Hard.    (Ky.) 

154,  636 

Owens  V.  Ranstead,  22  111.  161,       173 
Owens  V.  Starr,  2  Litt.  (Ky.)  230, 

622 
Owens  V.  State,  32  Neb.  167,  S.  C. 

49N.W.  R.  226,  660 

Owings  V.  Gibson,  2  A.  K.  Marsh. 

(Ky.)  517,  224 

Oxford  Iron  Co.  v.  Spradley,  42 

Ala.  24,  440 

Oystead  v.  Shed,  12  Mass.  506,        467 


Pace  V.  Mealing,  21  Ga.  464,  1160 

Pack  V.  Simpson,  74  Mich.  28,  S. 

C.  41  N.  W.  R.  850,  636,  639 

Pacific,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Malin,  132  U. 

S.  531,  1226 

Pacific,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Seibert,   44 

Fed.  R.  310,  483 

Pacific  R.  Co.  V.  Governor,  23  Mo. 

353,  170,  251 

Pacific  Rv.  Co.,  In  re,  32  Fed.  R. 

241,       '  117,J119,  170 

Packard  v.  Bergen,  etc.,  Co.,  54 

N.  J.  L.  229,  ^S.  C.  23  Atl.  R. 

722,  1224 

Packard  v.  Packard,  ?A  Kan.  53,  142 
Packard  v.  Smith,  9  Wis.  184,  1161 
Packard  v.   Van  St-hoick,  58  111. 

79,  406 

Packer  v.   Dorav,  98  Cal.  315,  S. 

C.  33  Pac.  R.  il8,  1167 

Packet   Co.   v.  Sickles,  19  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  611,  641,  1231 

Packet  Co.  v.  Sickels,5  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  580,  542 

Paddock  v.   Ins.   Co.,  12   N.   Y. 

591,  1188 

Paddock    v.   Matthews,  3  Mich. 

18,  469 

Padden  v.  Moore,  58  la.  703,  473 

Paddock  v.  Somes.  102  Mo.  226. 

S.  C.  lOL.  R.  A.  254,  1176 

Page,  Ex  parte,  49  Mo.  291,      243,  342 


1-6-02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Page  V.   Allen,  58  Pa.  St.  3.38,  S. 

C.  98  Am.  Dec.  272,  258 

Page  V.  Contoocook,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  21  N.  II.  438,  6.")4 

Page  V.  Cnshing,  38  .Me.  523,  544 

Page  V.  Foster,  7  N.  H.  392,      572,  584 
Page  V.  Osgood,  2  Gray  (Mass.) 

260,  677 

Page  V.  Waring,  76  N.  Y".  463, 

500,549 
Page's  Estate,  50  Cal.  40,  189 

Page's  Estate,  57  Cal.  238,      718,  1224 
Paine  v.  Drew,  44  N.  H.  306,  373 

Paine  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  31 

Ind.  283,  1090 

Paine  v.  Lester,  44  Conn.  190,  S. 

C.  26  Am.  R.  442,  302 

Paine  v.  Mooreland,  15  Ohio  435, 

320  321  427 
Paine  v.  Ringold,  43  Mich.  341,"  '  5.38 
Paine  v.  Tilden.  20  Vt.  554,  807 

Paine  v.  Woollcv,  80  Kv.  568,  347 

Palairet's  Appeal,  67  Pa.  St.  479, 

S.  C.  5  Am.  R.  450,  97 

Palatka,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State, 

23  Fla.  546,  S.  C.  3  So.  R.  158,     1162 
Palmer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  112 

Ind.  250,  1023, 1027, 1028,  1055 

Palmer  V.  Crosbv,  1  Blackf.  139,      1194 
Palmer  v.  Davis,  28  N.   Y\   242, 

583,  1040 
Palmer  v.  Dodge,  4  Ohio  St.  21,  384 
Palmer  v.  Kennedv,  7  J.  J.  Mar. 

498,  '  1161 

Palmer  v.  Largent,  5  Neb.  223,  S. 

C.  25  Am.  R.  479,  532 

Palmer  v.  Lawrence,  5  N.  Y".  389, 

220 
Palmer  v.  McCormick,  28  Fed.  R. 

541,  444 

Palmer  v.  McCormick,  30  Fed.  R. 

82,  445,  449 

Palmer  v.  McMaster,  8  Mont.  186, 

S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  585,  449 

Palmer  v.  McMaster,  10  Mont.. 390, 

S.  C.  25  Pac.  Rep.  10.-16.  714 

Palmerv.  Oaklev,  2  D<)iis.(Mich.) 

433,  S.  C.  47  .\m.  Dec  41,     293,  316 
Palmer  v.  Palmer,  .36   Mich.  487, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  Rep.  605,  360 

Palmer  v.  People,  4  Neb.  68,  6(16 

Palmer  v.  Poor.  121  Ind.  135,  640 

Palmer  v.  Rowan.  21  Neb.  452,  S. 

C.  59  Am.  R.  844.  458 

Palmer  v.  Russell.  34  :\ro.  476.       1200 
Palmer  v.  Sanders  (N.  J.),  17  .\tl. 

R.  10S4,  454 

Palmer  v.  Thaver.  28  Conn.  237.     436 
Palmer  v.  Vaii  Wyck  (Tenn.),  21 

S.  W.  K.  761,      ■  594,  600 


ceil 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Feferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Pam  V.  Vilmar,  54  How.  Pr.  235, 

239,  261,  1130 
Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  529,  S. 

C.  2  Sup.  Ct.  R.  704,  284 

Pangborn  V.  Continental  Ins.  Co., 

07  Mich.  683,  S.  C.  35  N.  W.  R. 

814,  571 

Pansburn  v.  Bull,  1  Wend.  (N. 

YO  345,  552 

Paneoast  v.  Curtis,  6  N.  J.  L.  415,  596 
Panhorn  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co. 

(Mich.),  29  N.  W.  R.  475,  507 

Panton  v.  Williams,  1  G.  &  D.  504,  552 
Pape  v.Wrisht.  116  Ind.  502,  803,  1215 
Papiueau  vTBelgarde,  81  111.  61,  1119 
Parauiore  v.  Lindsev,  63  Mo.  63,  532 
Pardridge  v.  AVing,  75  111.  236,  619 
Parham  v.  Harnev,  6  Smed.  &  M. 

55,  '  1119,  1120 

Park  V.  Franco-Am.  Trading  Co., 

120  N.  Y.  51,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R. 

996,  641 

Park  V.  Piedmont  Ins.  Co.,  51  Ga. 

510.  639 

Park  V.  Wiley,  67  Ala.  310,  402 

Park  V.  Willis,  1  Cranch  C.  C.  357,  512 
Parke  v.  Com.  Ins.  Co.,  44  Pa.  St. 

422  441 

Parker,  Ex  parte,  131  U.  S.  221,  257 
Parker  v.  Abi-ams,  50  Ala.  35, 

1171, 1209 
Parker  v.  Bates,  29  Kan.  697,  1160 
Parker  v.  Chambers,  24  Ga.  518,  909 
Parker  v.  Clavton,  72  Ind.  307,  1209 
Parker  v.  Danforth,  16  Mass.  299,  442 
Parker   v.    Egdeston,    5    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  128,    "  595 

Parker  v.  Enslow,  102  111.  272,  810 
Parker  V.  Georgia,  etc.,  Co.,  83  Ga. 

5.39,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  233,      180,  737 
Parker  v.  Hubble,  75  Ind.  580, 

1109,  1149,  1155 
Parker  V.  Ibbetson,  4  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

345,  536 

Parker  v.  .Tackson,  16  Barb.  33,  1194 
Parker  v.  Jenkins,  3  Bush.  (Ky.) 

587,  1053 

Parker  v.  Kett,  1  Ld.  Raym.  658,  143 
Parker  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co., 

93  Mich.  607,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R. 

834,  1122 

Parker  v.  Marco,  136  N.  Y.  585,  457 
Parker  v.  McLean,  134  N.Y.  255,  1050 
Parker  v.  Morrell,  2  Ph.  Ch.  453, 

254,  1178 
Parker  v.  Morrill,  106  U.  S.  1,  332 
Parker  v.    Nickerson,  137   Mass. 

487,  201 

Parker  v.  Overman,  18  How.  137,  275 
Parker  v.  Page,  38  Cal.  522,  472 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Parker  v.  Palmer,  4  Barn.  &  Aid. 

387,  556 

Parker  v.  Parker,  12  N.  J.  Eq.  105,    477 
Parker  v.  Publishing  Co.,  69  Me. 

173.  369 

Parker  v.  Reddick,  65  Miss.  242, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  646,  555 

Parker  v.  Remington,  15  R.  I.  300, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  897,  383 

Parker  v.  State,  34  Ga.  262,  655 

Parker  v.  State,  55  Miss.  414,  665 

Parker  v.  State,  67  Md.  329,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  R.  387,  179 

Parker  v.  State,  88  Ala.  4,  S.  C.  7 

So.  R.  98,  54] 

Parker  v.   State  (Ind.),  35  N.  E. 

Rep.  1105,  79fi 

Parker  v.  State,  132  Ind.  419,         120l» 
Parker    v.   Steamboat     Co.,    109 

Mass.  449,  739 

Parker  v.  Urie,  21  Pa.  St  305,        1134 
Parker  v.  Wilson,  61  Vt.  116,  474 

Parker  v.  Winnipiseogee  Co.,    2 

Black  545,  262,  1130 

Parkes  v.  Clift,  9  Lea  524,  1178 

Parkhill  v.  Amlay,  15  Wend.  431,    556 
Parkhurst  v.    Lowton,   1   Meriv. 

390,  781 

Parkin    v.    Moon,  7    Carr.  &  P. 

408,  779 

Parkins  v.  Dunham,  3  Strob.  L. 

(S.  Car.)  224,  544,  558 

Parks,  In  re.  3  Mont.  426,  214 

Parks,  Ex  parte,  93  U.  S.  18,  256 

Parks  V.  Boston,  15  Pick.  (Mass.) 

198,  814 

Parks  V.  People's  Bank,  97  Mo. 

130,  S.  C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  295,  485 

Parks  V.  Ross,  11  How.   (U.  S.) 

362,  1055 

Parks  V.  Satterthwaite,  132   Ind. 

411,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  Rep.  82, 

21,  372,  1103,  1146 
Parks  V.  State,  4  Ohio  St.  234,  665 
Parks  V.  Turner,  12  How.  (U.  S.) 

39,  1122 

Parler  v.  Johnson,  81  Ga.  254,         199 
Parmalee  v.  Town  of  Bethlehem, 

57  Conn.  270,  1047 

Parmer  v.  Keith,  16  Neb.  91,  464 

Parmiter  v.  Coupland,  6  Mees.  & 

W.  105,  540 

Parmly    v.    Head,   33    111.   App. 

Parnell  v.  Hahn,  61  Cal.  131, 

301,  1171 
Parrish  v.  McNeal,  36  Neb.  727, 

S.  C.  65  N.  W.  R.  222,  1114 

Parroski    v.    Goldberg,    80    Wis. 

339,  S.  C.  SON.  W.  R.  191,  1243 


TAULI^    OK    CASES. 


CCIU 


[^Beferences  are  to  Pagcx,  Vol.  I,  ]>] 

Parrott  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  5 

Fed.  R.  3!n,  280 

Parrv  v.  Woodson,  33  Mo.  347,  S. 

S.  84  Am.  Dec.  51,  430 

Parsons  v.  Aldricli,  6  N.  H.  264,  590 
Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  433,  1 131 
Parsons  v.  Harper,  16  Gratt.  04,  1154 
Parsons  v.  Hedges,  15  la.  119,  1081 
Parsons  v.  Missouri  Pae.  R.  R. 
Co.,  94  Mo.  280,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R. 
464,  559 

Parsons  v.  Robinson,  122  U.  S. 

112,  1187 

Parsons  v.  State,  22  Ala.  50,  667 

Parsons  v.    Stockbridge,  42  Ind. 

121,  1166 

Parsons  v.  Thorlume,  etc.,  Co.,  5 

Cal.  44,  256 

Partridge  v.  White,  59  Me.  564,        33 
Paschal  v.  Cash  man,  26  Tex.  74, 

1106,  1108 
Paschal  v.  Owen,  77  Tex.  583,  S. 

C.  14  S.  W.  R.  203,  821 

Pasley  v.  Freeman,  3  T.  R.  51,        390 
Pasour  V.  Lineberger,  90  N.  Car. 

159,  255 

Passenger,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Birnbaum 

(Pa.),  10  Atl.R.  138,  1171 

Passmore  V.  Moore,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 

(Kv.)  591,  452 

Passmore  v.  Pettit,  4  Ball.  (U.  S.) 

271,  592 

Passwater  v.    Edwards,   44    Ind. 

343,  1189 

Pate  V.  Tait,  72  Ind.  450,  623 

Patent  Brick  Co.  v.  Moore,  75  Cal. 

205,  1168 

Pattee  v.  Gilmore,  18  N.  H.  460, 

S.  C.  45  Am.  Dec.  385,  395 

Patten  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

32  AVis.  524,  534 

Patten  v.  Cunnington,  03  Tex.  666, 

442 
Patten  v.  Hazewell,  34  Barb.  421, 

1195 
Patten  v.  Pancoast,  109  N  .Y.  625, 

S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  893,  531,  559 

Patrick  v.  Crowe,  15  Col.  543,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  985,  220,  224 

I'atrick  v.  Graham,  132  U.  S.  627, 

1207 
Patrick  v.  Petty,  83  Ala.  420,  375 

I'atrick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Skoman,  1 
Col.  App.  323,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R. 
21.  1121 

Patridge  v.  Patterson,  6  la.  514,      538 
Patterson  v.  Ball,  19  AVis.  243.       1003 
Patterson  v.  lyings,  9  Paige  (>27,      488 
Patterson  v.  Churchman,  122  Ind. 
379,  1230 


.  I'fJO'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-I244.] 
Patterson  v.  Gaines,  0  How.  (U. 

8.)  550,  1127 

Patterson    v.    Inilianapolis,   etc., 

Co.,  50  Ind.  2(».  1005 

Patterson  v.  Jack,  59  la.  032,  ll(i2 

Patterson  v.  Leavitt,  4  Conn.  50, 

S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  98,  591,  592 

Patterson  v.  Lfjrd,  47  Ind.  203,  1158 
Patterson  v.  Prior,  18  Ind.  440, 

352,  374 
Patterson  v.  State,  70  Ind.  341,  1009 
Patterson  v.  State,  48  N.  J.  L.  381, 

659,  001,  062 
Patterson  v.  Stephenson,  77  Mo. 

329,  467 

Patterson    v.    United     States,    2 

Wheat.  (U.  S.)  221,  1115,  1116 

Patterson  v.  Wallace,  44  Pa.  St. 

88,  517 

Patteson  v.  Ford,  2  Gratt.  18,  1159 
Pattison  v.   Bacon,  12  Abb.  Pr. 

142,  1206 

Patton  V.  Allison,  7  Humph.  320,  274 
Patton  V.  Bainl,  7  I  red.  Eq.  (N. 

Car.)  255,  595 

Patton  V.  Bragg,  113  Mo.  595,  S. 

C.  35  Am.  St.^R.  730,  1025 

Patton  V.  Goldsborough,  9  S.  &  R. 

47,  34 

Patton  V.  Hamilton,  12  Ind.  256,  390 
Paul  V.  Davis,  100  Ind.  422, 

40,  52,  9.54 
Paul  V.  Rogers,  5  :Monr.  104,  1234 

Paul  V.  State  (Ala.),  14  So.  R.634, 

1073 
Paul  V.  Stone,  112  I^Iass.  27,  379 

Paul  V.  Virginia,  8  AVall.  (U.  S.) 

1()8,  440 

Paul  V.  AVard,  21  Ind.  211,  458 

Paul  V.  AAMllis.  69  Tex.  201,  S.  C. 

7  S.  AV.  R.  357,  314 

Paulling  V.  Creagh,  03  Ala.  398,  453 
Paulmanv.  Claycomb,  75  Ind.  64,  820 
Paulsen   v.  ^Manske,  24  111.  App. 

95,  586 

Paulson  V.  Nunan,  54  Cal.  123,  1146 
Paulson  V.  Nunan,  64  Cal.  290,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  295,  1146 

Pavev  V.  American  Ins.  Co.,   50 

AVis.  221,  1089 

Pavey  v.  Pavev,  30  Ohio  St.  000.  1213 
Pavlooski  v.  Thornton,  89  Ga.  829, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  822.  1075 

Pawlingv.Si>eed,5T.  B.Mon.580,  314 
Pawlinsr  v.  The  United  States,   4 

Cranch  219.  1028 

PaxoM  v.  Bailev.  17  (ni.  000.  551 

I'axson  v.  Sweet.  13  N.  J.  L.  190,    545 

Paxton  v.  Daniell.  1  AVash.  19,  S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  441.  614 


CCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  arc  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Pay  V.  Shanks,  56  Ind.  554,  395 

Payne  v.  Baxter,  2  Tenn.  Ch.517,    410 
Payne  v.  Crawford,  97  Ala.  604,  S. 

C.  10  So.  R.  924,  S.  C.  11  So.  R. 

7.75  592,  594 

Pavne  v.  Dicus  (la.),  55  N.  W  R. 

483  1212,  l.ilo 

Payne  v.  Drewe,  4  East  523,  299 

Pavne  v.  Farmers',  etc..  Bank,  29 

Conn.  415.  609 

Payne  v.  Flourney,  29  Ark.  500,     121o 
Pavne  v.   Kansas,   etc.,   Co.,   46 

Fed.  R.  481,  487,  488 

Pavne  v.  McLean,  1  Upper  Can. 

K.  B.  325,  652 

Pavne  v.  Snell,  3  Mo.  409,  469 

PaVne  v.  State,  60  Ala.  80,  802 

Payne  v.  Young,  8  N.  Y.  158,  452 

Payton  v.  Sherburne,  15  R.  I.  213, 

Pea  V.  Pea,  35  Ind.  387,  1090 

Peabody  v.  Norfolk,  98  Mass.  452, 

485 
Peabody  Ins.   Co.  v.  Wilson,  29 
W.  Va.  528,  S.  C.  2  S.  E.  R.  888, 

554,  1034 
Peacock  v.  Bell,  1  Saunders  73, 

Peake  v.  Highfield,  11  Russ.  559, 

Peak  V.  People,  71  111.  278,  255 

Pearce  v.  Atwood,  13  Mass.  324, 

Pearce  v.  Mclntvre,  29  Mo.  423,  '  595 
Pearce  v.  Watkins,  68  Md.  534,  528 
Pearcy  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill 

Ind.  59,  S.  C.  60  Am.  R.  673, 

650, 662 
Pearson  v.  Burditt,  26  Tex.  157,  S. 

C.  80  Am.  Dec.  649,  1160 

Pearson  v.  Hopkins,  2  N.  J.  L. 

192  ^^^ 

Pearson  v.  Manufacturing  Co.,  14 

Neb.  211,  ^    ^    332 

Pearson  v.  Post,  2  Dak.  220,  S.  C. 

9  N.  W.  R.  684,  _  1193 

Pearson  v.  Wightman,  1  Mill  (S. 

Car.)  336,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  636, 

738 

Pearson  v.  Zehr,  138  111.  48,  S.  C. 

29  N.  E.  R.  854,  1065 

Pease  v.  Howard,  14  Johns.  479,  366 
Pease  v.  Pease,  66  Ga.  277,  1162 

Pease  v.  Smith,  61  N.  Y.  477,  394 

Pease  Furnace  Co.,  In  re,  59  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  626,  628 

Peck  v.  Andrews,  32  Barb.  445,  l.i4 
Peck  V.  Bank,  16  R.  I.  710,  S.  C. 

19  Atl.  R.  369,  367 

Peck  V.  Barney.  13  Vt.  93,  413 


,  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Peck  V.Essex  Freeholders, Spencer 

(N.J.)  457,  220 

Peck  V.  Freeholders,  21  N.  J.  L. 

656,  ,,    ^    220 

Peck  V.   Goodberlett,  109  N.  Y. 
180,  S.  C.  16  N.  E.  R.  350, 

480,  719 
Peck  V.  La  Roche,  86  Ga.  314,  S. 

C.  12  S.  E.  R.  638,  460 

Peck  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  101 

Ind.  366,  1229 

Peck  V.  Strauss,  333  Cal.  678, 

321,  436 
Peck  V.  Vanderberg,  30  Cal.  11,  1178 
Peck  V.  Yorks,  41  Barb.  547,  490 

Peckham  v.  Tomlinson,  6  Barb. 

253  342 

Peckman  v.  North  Parish,  16  Pick. 

(Mass.)  274,  440 

Pedieo  v.  Grimes,  113  Ind.  148, 

^  721,  736,  1129 

Peebles  v.  Rand,  43  N.  H.  337,  233 
Peebles  v.  Root,  48  Ga.  592,  1048 

Peebles  v.  Watts,  9  Dana  102,  335 
Peed  V.  Brenneman,  89  Ind.  252,  679 
Peed  V.  Brenneman,  72  Ind.  288,  1154 
Peetv.  Dakota, etc.,  Co.  (S.  Dak.), 

47  N.  W.  R.  532,  551 

Pegg  V.  Warford,  7  Md.  582,  518 

Pehlman   v.  State,  115  Ind.  131,     ^^ 

Peigh  V.  Huffman,6  Ind.  App.  658, 

S.  C.  34  N.  E.  R.  32,  1155 

Pejepscot  Proprietors  v.  Nichols, 

10  Me.  256,  1113 

Pekin  v.  Winkel,  77  111.  56,  1119 

Pelham  v.  Rose,  9  Wall.  103,  129 

Pella  v.  Scholte,  24  la.  283,  366 

Pellsv.  Snell,  130  111.379  312 

Pence  v.  Garrison,  93  Ind.  345,  llb<J 
Pence  v.Waugh  (Ind.), 34  N.  E.  R. 

860,  „,     ,      ^"^ 

Pencil  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  3  Wash. 

485,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  1031,  1087 

Pendleton  v.  Dalton,  64  N.  Car. 

329  480,  487 

Pendleton  v.  Empire,  etc.,  Co.,  19 

N.  Y.  13,  ^    800 

Pendleton  v.  Russell,144  U.  S.  640, 

S   C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  743,  493 

Penhallow  v.  Kimball,61  N.H.596,  290 
Penhryn  Slate  Co.v.  Meyer,8Daly 

(N.Y.)61,  669,674 

Peninsular  Bank  v.  Hanmer,  14 

Mich.  208,  ^       ,     532 

Peninsular  Land,etc.,Co.v.Frank- 

lin  Ins.  Co.,.35W.Ya.666,S.C. 

14  S   E   R.  237,  1088,  1090,  1096 

Peninpnfar  R.  R.  v.  Howard,  20 

3Iicb.  18,  654 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCV 


[Tirfcrences  arc  to  Pages,  VdI.  I,  pp 
Peniston  v.  Somers,  15  La.  Ann. 

679,  1192 

Penn  v.  Lord  Baltimore,  1  Ves. 

Sr.  444,  S.  C.  2  Leading  C.  in 

Eq.  180(3,  280,  2S2,  28.3,  5(39 

Penn  v.  Pelan,  52  La.  535,  474 

Pennell  v.  Grubb,  13  Pa.  .St.  552,  475 
Pennie  v.  Visher,  94  Cal.  323,  G34 
Penniinan    v.  Rodman,  13  Mete. 

382,  572,  584 

Penniman  v.   Ruggles,   6    Mass. 

10(3,  197 

Pennington   v.  Gibson,  16  How. 

(U.S.)  05,  315 

Pennington  v.   Straight,  54  Ind. 

370,  212 

Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.  (U. 

S.)  1,  1059,  1229 

Pennock  v.  McCormick,  120  Mass. 

275,  1232 

Pennover  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714, 

27L275,280,424,428,  444,445,451,403 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Conlan,  101 

111.  93,  915 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Dean,  92  Ind. 

459,  1211 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v.  Frana,   13 

111.  App.  91,  545 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v.     Long,   94 

Ind.  250,  1068 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  McCormick, 

131  Ind.  250,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R. 

27,  1069 

Pennsylvania  Co. v.  Mvers  (Ind.), 

36  N.  E.  R.  32,         '  1095 

Pennsylvania   Co.  v.  Newmeyer, 

129  Ind.  401,  S.  C.  28  N.  E'.  R. 

860,  180,  810 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Niblack,  99 

Ind.  149,  207,  1139 

Pennsylvania  Co.   v.   Roney,   89 

Ind."  453,  1081 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Rov,  102  U. 

S.451,  ■        720,1069 

Pennsylvania  Co.   v.  Sloan,   125 

111.  72,  378 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v.    Smith,   98 

Ind."  42,  1098 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Stegemeier, 

118  "Ind.  305,  S.  C.  10  Am.  St. 

R. 136,  1025 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Weddle,  100 

Ind."  138,  552 

Pennsylvania     v.     Ravenel,  .  21 

How.  (U.S.)  103,  543 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.'s  Appeal, 

125  Pa.  St.  189,  376 

Pennsylvania  R.   R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 

nett;  59  Pa.  St.  259,  547 


]-0(rj,  ]'ol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Pennsylvania   R.   R.  Cd.  v.  Con- 

nell,"  127   111.  419,  S.  C.  20  N.  K. 

R.  89,  544,  740 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Frana, 

112iii.39S,  547 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hensil, 

70  liid.  5(39,  547 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. v.  Peoples, 

31  Ohio  St.  537,  464 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. v.  Righter, 

42  N".  J.  L.  180,  548,  1045 

Pennvwit   v.  Foote,  27  Oliio  St. 

(iOO",  S.  C.  22  Am.  R.  340,  336,  606 
Penobscot  Boom  Corj*.  v.  Lamson, 

16  Me.  224,  S.  C.  33  Am.  Dec. 

656,  605 

Penobscott,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weeks,  52 

Me.  456,  327 

Pen  ruddock's  Case,  5  Co.  101.  393 
Pensacola  v.  Reese,  20  Fla.  437,  298 
Pensacola,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spratt,  12 

Fla.  26,  S.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  747,  478 
Penson  v.  Lee,  2  B.  A  P.  330,  692 

People  V.  Abbott,  97  Mich.  484,  S. 

C.  56  N.  W.  R.  862,  803 

People  V.  Ah  Lee  Doon,  97  Cal. 

171,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  Rep.  933,  661,  663 
Peoi)le  V.  Ah  Ying,  42  Cal.  18,  152 
People  v.   Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  55 

Barb.  344,  195 

People  V.  Albertson,  8  How.  Pr. 

3(33,  216 

People  v.  Alpin,  86  Mich.  393,  S. 

C.  49N.  W.  R.  148.  666 

People  V.  Altgeld,  43  111.  App.  460, 

1242 
People  V.  Amanacus,  50 Cal.  233,  807 
People  V.  Ames,  35  N.  Y.  482,  S. 

C.  91  Am.  Dec.  64,  436 

People  V.  Anderson,  44  Cal.  65,  822 
People  V.  Anthonv,  129  111.  218, 

1227.  1242 
People  V.  Anthony,  25  III.  App. 

532,  ■  1242 

People  V.  Arceo,  32  Cal.  40,  178 

People  V.  Arnold,  40  :Mich.  710,  780 
People  V.  Baker,  96  N.  Y.  340, 

543,  738 
People  V.  Baker,  3  Park.  Crim.  R. 

(N.Y.)181,  (329 

People  V.  Baker,  76  N.  Y.  78, 

260,  272,  287 
People  v.  Barnluirt.  59  Cal.  402,  821 
People  V.  Barton.  16  Col.  75,  26 

Pac.  R.  149,  476 

People  V.  Batcholor.  22 N.  Y.  128,  592 
Pfopli'  v.  Hea.-h,  S7  N.  Y.  508,  789 
People  V.  Beaver,  83  Cal.  419.    S. 

C.  23  Pac.  R.  321,  182 


CCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
People  V.  Benjamin,  9  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  419,  505 

People  V.  Bennett,  37  X.  Y.  117,  654 
People  V.  Bernal,  43  Cal.  385,  437 

People  V.  Bissell,  19  111.  229,  170,  251 
People  V.  Bloedel,  16  N.Y.  S.  837,  164 
People  V.  Board,   23    111.   App. 

386,  1232 

People  V.  Board,  100  111.  495,  202 

People  V.  Bodine,  1  Denio  (N.Y.) 

281,  662,  666 

People  V.  Bonney,  19  Cal.  426,  815 
People  V.  Bonnev,  98  Cal.  278,  S. 

C.  33  Pac. R.  98,  1074 

People  V.  Boscoviteh,  20  Cal.  436, 

179,  697 
People  V.  Bri2gs,  50  N.  Y.  553,  298 
People  V.  Brooks.  131  N.  Y.  321, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  189,  796,  797 

People  V.  Brown,  49  Barb.  9,  120 

People  V.  Brown,  8  111.  87,  1049 

People  V.  Buddensieck,  103  N.  Y. 

487,  S.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  44,        813,  816 
People    V.    Bamberger,    45    Cal. 

650,  1073 

People  V.  Burns,  78  Cal.  645,  S.  C. 

21  Pac.  R.  540,  1137 

People  V.  Bush,  71  Cal.  602,  S.  C. 

10  Pac.  R.  169,  815 

People  V.  Bush,  68  Cal.  623,  813 

People  V.  Bushton,  80  Cal.  160,  800 
People  V.  Carolin,  115  N.  Y.  658,  636 
People  V.  Carpenter,  24  N.  Y.  86,  202 
People  V.  Carpenter,  102  N.  Y. 

238,  657,  658 

People  V.  Carrier,  46  Mich.  442,  667 
People  V.  Carter,  29  Barb.  208,  217 
People  V.  Cavanaugh,  2  Park.  Cr. 

R.  650,  341 

People  V.  Center,  61  Cal.  191,  1166 
People  V.  Central  Citv  Bank,  53 

Barb.  412,  "  156 

People  V.  Chapin,  105  N.  Y.  309,  298 
People  V.  Chew,  6  Cal.  6.36,  174 

People  V.  Chew  Sing  Wing,  88  Cal. 

268,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  1099,  1076 

People  V.  Chicago,  53  111.  424,  301 

People  V.  Christie,  2  Park.  Crim. 

Cas.  579,  G63 

People  V.  City  of  Rochester,  21 

Barb.  656,  323 

People  V.   City   of    St.   Louis,   5 

Gil.  (111.)  351,  482 

People  V.  City  of  Syracuse,  78  N. 

Y.  56,  177 

People  V.Clark,  62 Hun (N.Y.)84,  656 
People  V.  Clayton,  4  Utah  421,  S. 

C.  11  Pac.  R.  206,  527 

People  V.  Coffman,  59  Mich.  573, 

S.  C.  26N.  W.  R.  207,  652 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'\ 
People  V.  Coghill,  47  Cal.  361,         592 
People  V.  Commissioners,  3  Hill 

599,  298 

People  V.  Commissioners,  11  How. 

Pr.  (N.Y.)  89,  527 

People  V.  Commissioners,  54  N. 

Y.  276,  526 

People  V.  Commissioners,  7   Col. 

190,  522 

People  V.  Cook,  44  Cal.  638,  400 

People  V.  Cook,  8  N.  Y.  67,  1051 

People  V.  Copsev,  71  Cal.  548,         797 
People  V.  Crowley,  102  N.  Y.  234, 

S.  C.  6  N.  E.  R.  384,  661 

People  V.  Cullom,  100  111.  472,         170 
People  V.  Cummins,  47  Mich.  334, 

798 
People  V.  Cunningham,  1  Denio 

People  V.  Dane,  59  Mich.  550,  820 
People  V.  Dawell,  25  Mich.  247, 

S.  C.  12  Am.  R.  260,  287 

People  V.  De  la  Guerra,  24  Cal.  73,  218 

People  V.  Devine,  44  Cal.  452,  801 
People  V.  Dewick,  2  Park.  Cr.  (N. 

Y.)  2.30,  662 

People  V.  Dimick,  107  N.  Y.  13,  308 

People  V.  Doe,  1  Mich.  451,  662 
People  V.  Dolan,  96  Cal.  315,  S.  C 

31  Pac.  R.  107,  665 

People  V.  Dowling,  84  N.  Y.  478,  719 

People  V.  Doyell,  48  Cal.  85,  806 

People  V.  Duirfee,  62  Mich.  487,  179 

People  V.  Dye,  75  Cal.  108,  799 

People  V.  Eastwood,  14  N.Y.  562,  739 
People  V.  Edmonds,  15  Barb.  529, 

220 

People  V.  Elliott,  80  Cal.  296,  630 
People  V.  Elster,  5  Crim.  L.  Mag. 

687,  798 

People  V.  Evans,  72  Mich.  367,  820 
People  V.  Everest,  4  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

71,  376 

People  V.  Falconer,  2  Sandf.  81,  346 
People  V.   Fanshawe,  137,  N.  Y. 

68,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  1102,  657 

People  V.  Ferris,  35  N.  Y.  125,  342 
People  V.  Fick,  89  Cal.  144,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  759,  541 
People  V.  Flack,  125  N.  Y.  324,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  265,  S.  C.  11  L.  R. 

A.  807,  543,1076 

People  V.  Foote,  93  Mich.  38,  S. 

C.  52  N.  W.  R.  1036,  798 
People  V.  French,  95  Cal.  371,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  567,  782 

People  V.  Frisbie,  26  Cal.  135,  117 
People  V.  Gage,  62  Mich.  271,  S. 

C.  28  N.  W.'R.  835,  660 

People  V.  Gallagher,  75  Mich.  512,  226 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCVU 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
People  V.  Gar  Soy,  57  Cal.  102,  603  I 
People  V.  Gates,  57  Barb.  2i>l,  293  ' 
People  V.  Genet,  5!)  N,  Y.  80,  S. 

C.  17  Am.  R.  315,  1216 

People  V.  Gonzales,  35  N.  Y.  49,  809 
People  V.  Governor,  29  Midi.  320,  170 
People  V.   Graham,  21   Cal.  261, 

655,  737 
People  V.  Gray,  5  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

289,  1064 
People  V.  Grav,  7  N.  Y.  378,  807 

People  V.  Green,  53  Cal.  60,  815 

People  V.  Greiger,  138  111.  401,  S. 

C.  28  N.  E.  R.  812,  170 

People  V.  Griffin,  77  Mich.  585,  S. 

C.  43N.  W.  R.  1061,  543 

People  V.  Hagadorn,  104  N.Y".  516,  202 
People    V.   Hagar,   52    Cal.    171, 

165,  320,  323,  427 
People  V.  Hall,  48  .Alit-h.  482,  706 

People  V.  Harris,  4  Denio  (N.  Y.) 

150,  626 

People  V.  Harrison,  82  HI.  84,  1195 
People  V.  Harrison,  93  Mich.  594,  1075 
People  V.  Harrison,  84  Cal.  607,  327 
People  V.  Hanghton,  41  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  558,  454 

People  V.  Ha\ves,25  111.  App.  326,  1242 
People  V.  Hicks,  53  Cal.  354,  915 

People  V.  Hicks,  15  Barb.  153,  298,  397 
People  V.  Hite,  8  Utah  461,  S.  C. 

33  Pac.  R.  254,  797 

People  V.  HoUadav,  93  Cal.  241,  S. 

C.  27  Am.  St.  R".  186,  387 

People  V.  Hopt,  4  Utah  247,  S.  C. 

9  Pac.  R.  407,  667,  668 

People  V.  Huber,  20  Cal.  81,  444 

People  V.  Hughes,  137  N.  \^  29,  S. 

C.  32  N.  E.  R.  1105,  665 

People  V.  Hunt,  41  :\Iich.  334,  118 

People  V.  Hunt,  59  Cal.  430,  1124 

People  V.  Hurlbut,  24  Mich.  44,  S. 

C.9Am.  R.  103,  122,203 

People  V.  Jacobs,  49  Cal.  384,  794 

People  V.  Judge,  38  :Mich.  310,  437 
People  V.  Judses  of  Washington, 

ICainesSlf,  1242 

People  V.   Judge  of  Wayne  Co., 

etc.,  1  Mich.  ^359,  1241 

People  V.  Judges  of  Westchester, 

Col.  &  Caines  (N.  Y.)  135,  1242 

People  V.  Justices,  74  N.  Y.  406,  643 
People  V.  Keeler,  99  N.  Y.  463.  S. 

C.  52  Am.  R.  49,  117,  118 

People  V.  Keenan,  13  Cal.  581,  178 
People  V.  Kellv,  113  N.  Y.  647,  543 
People  V.  Kellv.  38  Cal.  145,  258,  307 
People  V.  Kellv,  35  Hun  295,  1073 
People  V.  Kellv,  94  N.  Y.  526, 

178,  1159,  1170 


1~G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
People  v.  Kellv,  97  N.  Y.  212,         342 
People  v.  Kicriian.  101  N.  Y.  618, 

.S.  C.  4  N.  E.  R.  130.  6-52 

People  V.  King,  27  Cal.  507,  S.  C. 

87  Am.  Dec.  95,  10fJ4 

People  v.  Knai.p,  42  Mich.  267,  799 
People  V.  Lake,  12  N.  Y.  3-58,  740 

People  V.  Lampson,  70  Cal.  204, 

S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  593,  521 

People  V.  Langdon,  8  Cal.  1,  203 

People  V.  Laiigc,  90  Mich.  454,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.R.  534,  780 

People  V.  Larubia,  69  Hun  197,  S. 

C.  23  N.  Y.  .Supp.  579,  a58 

People  V.  Lee,  14  Cal.  510,  1242 

People  V.  Lee,  5  Cal.  353,  626,  627 
People  V.  Lee  Ah  Yute,  60  Cal.  95,  821 
People  V.  Lee  Chuck,  78  Cal.  317,  801 
People  V.  Lee  Gam,  69  Cal.  552,  1073 
People  V.  Levine,  85  Cal.  39,  811 

People  V.  Liscomb,  60  N.  Y.  559, 

S.  C.  19  Am.  R.  211,  126,  243,  340 
People  V.  Lothrop,  3  Col.  428,  527 
People  V.  Mahoney,  18  Cal.  180,  221 
People  V.  Manning,  48  Cal.  335, 

712,  781 
People  V.  Mariposa  Company,  39 

Cal.  683,  605 

People  V.  Martell,  138  N.  Y.  595, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  838,  661 

People  V.    Mather,  4  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  229,  S.  C.  21  Am.  Dec.  122, 

662,  707,  737,  780,  803,  805 
People  V.  Maynard,  15  Mich.  463,  143 
People  V.  Maynard,  14  111.  419,  118 
People  V.  IMcCaffrev,  75  Mich.  115, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  681,  603 

People  V.  McCa-llam,  103  N.Y'.  587, 

1075 
People  V.  McCaulev,  1  Cal.  379.  660 
People  V.  McClellan,  31  Cal.  101,  174 
People  V.  McClutchen,  40  :Mich. 

244,  191 

People  V.  McCormick.  135  N.  Y. 

663,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  Rep.  26,  798 

People  V.  McCov,  45  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  216,  '  809 

People  V.  McCoy,  71  Cal.  395,  1159 
People  V.  McEivaine,  121   N.  Y. 

250,  S.  C.  IS  Am.  St.  R.  820,  741 
People  V.  i\[cFa<lden.  81  Cal.  489,  170 
People  V.  McGonesal,  136  N.  Y''. 

62,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  Rep.  616, 

657,  658,  660 
People  V.   McKinnev,  10  Jlich. 

54.  ■  1171 

People  V.  ;McNamara,  94  Cal.  509, 

S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  9.53,  790,  791 

People  V.  McRoberts,  100  111.  458,  6.30 
People  V.  Mellon,  40  Cal.  648.  214 


CCVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Befei-ences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
People  V.  Millard,  53  Mich.  63,       706 
People  V.  Mills,  W  Mich.  630,  S. 

C.  54  N.  W.  K.  488,  785,  804 

People  V.  Mitchell,  62  Cal.  411,  820 
People  V.  INIitchell,  94  Cal.  550,  796 
People  V.  Mailer,  96  N.  Y.  408,  1066 
People  V.  ^luUiugs,  17  Am.  St.  R. 

223,  782 

People  V.  Murray,  89  Mich.  276,  S. 

C.  14L.  R.  A.'809,  1127 

People  V.  Nash,  111  N.  Y.  310,  S. 

C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  747,  585 

People  V.  Nelson,  85  Cal.  421,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  Rep.  1006,  712,  1206 

People  V.  Nevins,  1  Hill  154,  329, 423 
People  V.  New  York,  3  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.Y.)181,  488 

People  V.  Nichols,  79  N.  Y.  582,  119 
People  V.  Northern  R.  R.  Co.,  42 

N.  Y.  217,  495 

People  V.  Northrup,  50  Barb.  147,  138 
People  V.  Norton,  1  Paige  17,  195 

People  V.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  1,  S. 

C.  2  L.  R.  A.  255,  424 

People  V.  O'Brien,  78  Cal.  41,  S. 

C.  20  Pac.  R.  359,  182 

People  V.  O'Brien,  96  Cal.  171,  1074 
People  V.  O'Laughlin,  3  Utah  133,  697 
People  V.  Olcott,   2  Johns.  Cas. 

301,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  168,  1124 

People  V.  O'Neil,  47  Cal.  109,  155 

People  V.  Osborn,  57  Barb.  663,  1241 
People  V.  Oyer  &  Terminer,  83  N. 

Y.  436,  782 

People  V.  Parish,  4  Denio  (N.Y.) 

153,  1069 

People  V.  Parton,  49  Cal.  632,  707 

People  V.  Pearson,  2  Scam.  189,  S. 

C.  33  Am.  Dec.  445,  1242 

People  V.  People's  Ins.  Exch.,  126 

111.  466,  S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  340, 

1050,  1053,  1055 
People  V.  Perry,  65  Cal.  568,  1071 

People  V.  Petheram,  64  Mich.  252,  452 
People  V.  Petty,  32  Hun  443,  226 

People  V.  Quick,  92  111.  580,  565 

People  V.  Quincy,  8  Cal.  89,  623 

People  V.  Ramirez,  56  Cal.  533,  S. 

C.  38  Am.  R.  73,  742 

People  v.Rathbun,21  Wend.  509,  1225 
People  V.  Recter,  19  Wend. (N.Y.) 

569,  806 

People  V.  Redinger,  55  Cal.  290,  S. 

C.  36  Am.  R.  32,  1216 

People  V.  Reed,  81  Cal.  70,  543 

People  V.  Reeder,  25  N.  Y.  302,  469 
People   V.    Reyes,   5   Cal.  347, 

655,  663 
People  V.  Reynolds,  16  Cal.  128,     667 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
People  V.  Richmond,  16  Col.  274, 

S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  929,  118,  119 

People  V.  Rodrigo,  69  Cal.  601,  S. 

C.  8  Crim.  L.  Mag.  503,         798,  804 
People  V.  Rolfe,  61  Cal.  540,  29 

People  V.  Rose,  52  Hun  33,  1215 

People  V.  Rouse,  15  N.  Y.  Supl. 

414,  309 

People  V.  Royal,  1  Scam.  (Ill.)557,    255 
People  V.  Safford,  5  Denio  (N.Y.) 

112,  794 

People  V.  Sam  Lung,  70  Cal.  515, 

S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  673,  695 

People  V.  Sauisels,  66  Cal.  99,        1075 
People  V.  Sanchez,  24  Cal.  17,  138 

People  V.  Sanford,  43  Cal.  29,         1061 
People    V.    San    Francisco,   etc., 

Union,  31  Cal.  132,  1191 

People  V.  Schenectady,  35  Barb. 

408,  202 

People  V.  Scott,  56  Mich.  154,  665 

People  V.  Sexton,  24  Cal.  78,  630 

People  V.  Sharp,  107  N.  Y.  427,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  851,  738,781 

People  V.  Sherman  (Cal.),  32  Pac. 

R.  879,  804,  1065 

People  V.  St.  Dominick,  34  Hun 

463,  126,  133 

People  V.  Stephens,  51  How.  Pr. 

235,  1179 

People  V.  Stat  on,  73  N.  Car.  546, 

S.  C.  21  Am.  R.  479,  214 

People  V.  Stewart,  7  Cal.  140, 

657,  666 
People  V.  Stimer,  82  Mich.  17,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  28,  1184 

People  V.  Strong,  30  Cal.  151,  915 

People   V.  Stubenvoll,   62    Mich. 

329,  S.C.  8  Crim.  L.Mag.  265,     1111 
People  V.  Sturtevant,  9  N.  Y.  263, 

166,  1216 
People  V.  SulUvan,   24   N.  Y.  S. 

Rep.  579,  153 

People  V.  Supervisors,   65  N.  Y. 

222,  202 

People  V.  Supervisors,  24  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  413,     "  582 

People  V.  Supervisors,  27  Cal.  655,    527 
People  V.  Superior  Court,  5  Wend. 

114,  176 

People  V.  Sweetman,  3  Parker  C. 

R.  358,  308 

People  V.  Swenson,  49  Cal.  388, 

1171,  1209 
People  V.  Taylor,  36  Cal.  255,  1067 
People  v.Teague,  106  N.  Car.  571,  1243 
People  V.  Terry,  5  N.Y.  St.  R.  120,  120 
People    V.    The    Supervisors,    49 

Hun  476,  119 


TAl'.LE    OF    CASES, 


CCIX 


790 
1074 

*  658 
216 
308 

297 
13 


308 

22o 

29 


People  V.  Wilson,  64  111.  195,  137 

People  V.  Wilson,  3  Park.  Cr.  (N. 

Y.)  199,  657 

People  V.  Winters,  93  Cal.  277,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  946,  543 

People  V.  Wong  Ah  Bang,  3  West 

Coast  Rep.  58,   S.   C.   65  Cal. 

305,  742 

N 


[References  are  to  Pages,   Vol.  /,  pp 
People  V.  Thomson,  92  Cal.  506,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  589,  783 

People  V.  Tice,  15  L.  R.  A.  669,        782 
People  V.  Toal,  85  Cal.  333,  S.  C. 

24  Pac.  R.  603,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R. 

203,  120,  1184 

People  V.  Town  of  Nevada,  6  Cal. 

143,  212 

People  V.  Trim,  37  Cal.  274,  1077 

People  V.  Turner,  55  111.  280,  294 

Peoi>le  V.  Turner,  1  Cal.  143,  S.  C. 

52  Am.  Dec.  295,  256 

People  V,  Tweed,  50  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  286,  a51 

People  V.  Tyler,  36  Cal.  522,  820 

People  V.  Urquidas,  96  Cal.  239,     1074 
People  V.  Vermilvea,  7  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)  369,  "  624 

People  V.  Vincent,  95  Cal.  425,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  581,  630,652 

People  V.  Voll,  43  Cal.  166,  665 

People  V.  Wall  Lee  Mon,  59  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  626,  660 

People  V.  Wallace,  91  Cal.  535,      1137 
People  V.  Wallace,  89  Cal.  158,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  650,  720 

People  V.  Walter,  68  N.  Y.  403, 

113,  332,  1214 
People  V.  Wavne  Circuit  Judge, 

41  Mich.  727",  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 

925,  162,  178 

People  V.  Weil,  40  Cal.  268,  666 

People  V.  Welch,  49  Cal.  174,         1069 
People  V.  Wessell,  98  Cal.  352,  S 

C.  33  Pac.  R.  216, 
People  V.  Wheeler,  65  Cal.  77, 
People  V.  Wheeler  (Mich.),  55  N. 

W.  R.  371, 
People  V.  AVMiite,  24  Wend.  520, 
People  V.  AVhite,  84  Cal.  183, 
People  V.  AVhitney's  Point,  102  N. 

Y.  81, 
People  v.Wikes  &  Jones, 20Cal. 51, 
People    V.    Wilkinson,    14  N.  Y. 

Supp.  827,  S.  C.  60  Hun  (N.  Y). 

582,  713,  1215 

People  V.  Williams,  24  Mich.  156, 

S.  C.  9  Am.  R.  119, 
People  V.  Williams,  24  Cal.  31, 
People  V.  Williams,  29  Hun  520, 
People  V.  Williamsburg,  etc.,  Co., 

47  N. Y.  586.  1106,  1107 


.  l-ao-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
People  V.  Wong  Ah  Foo,  69  Cal. 

180,  1073 

People  V.  Woodside,  72    111.  407, 

234,  (340 

People  V.  Wright,  89  Mich.  70,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.   R.  792,  646,  809 

Peopli'  V.  Yates,  40  111.  126,  170 

People  V.  Yoakum,  53  Cal.  566,  630 
People  V.  Young.  65  Cal.  225,  1071 
People  V.  Yslas,  27  Cal.  6.'-!0,  803,  804 
People  V.  Zant',  105  111.  ()62,  6.'i9 

People,  ex  rel.,  v.  Hall,  80  N.  Y. 

117,  260 

People's,   etc.,  Assn.   v.  Spears, 

115  Ind.  297,  1152. 1202 

People's  Bank  v.  Wilcox,  15  R.  I. 

258,  314 

People's,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Clark,    12 

Gray  165,  396 

People's  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pulver, 

127  111.  246,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R. 

18,  5.57 

People's   Gas   Co.  v.  Tvner,   131 

Ind.  408,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  59,      489 
People's   Saving  Bank   v.  Bates, 

120  r.  S.  556,  S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  679,  1053,  1054 

Peoria,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  74 

111.  394,  632 

Peoria.  D.  &  E.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Rice, 

144  111.  227,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R. 

951,  810 

Peoria  Gaslight,etc.,  Co.  v.  Peoria, 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  146  111.  372,  S.  C. 

34  N.  E.  R.  550,  814 

Pepin  V.   Lachenmeyer,  45  N.  Y. 

27,  215,  232 

Pepoon  V.  Jenkins,  2  Johns.  Cas. 

504 
601 

1111 

340 

1157 

1116 

557 
317 

1239 
394 

488 
381 

247 
190 
675 
407 


119, 

Pepper  v.  Gorham,  4  Moore  148, 
Peppery.  Philadelphia,  114  Pa. St, 

96, 
Pepper  v.  Zahnsinger,  94  Ind. 88, 
Percifull  v.  Piatt,  36  Ark.  456, 
Perea  v.  Colorado  Nat.  Bank  (N. 

Mex.),  27  Pac.  R.  322, 
Ferine  v.  Forhush,  97  Cal.  305,  S. 

C.  32  Pac.  R.  226, 
Perkins  v.  .\ttaway,  14  Ga.  27, 

Bakrow,  39  Mo.  App, 


Perkins 

331. 

Perkins 

Perkins 

482, 
Perkins 
Perkins 


Barnes.  3  Nev.  557 
.  Collins.  3  N.  J. 


Eq. 


Perkins  v 
Perkins  v 
Perkins  v 


Compton,  69  Ga.  736, 
Corhin,  45  Ala.  103. 

117,  119.  170. 
Dunlavv,  61  Tex.  241, 
Ermel.  2  Kan.  .325, 
Giles,  50  N.  Y.  228, 


ccx 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Perkins  v.  Guv,  55  Miss.  153,     373,  824 
Perkins  v.  Hasbrouck,  155  Pa.  St. 

494,  S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  695,  565 

Perkins    v.    Hawkins,    9    Gratt. 

{\a.)  649,  386 

Perkins  v.  Hayward,  124  Ind.  445, 

237,  719,  1148^  1239 
Perkins  v.  Haywood,  132  Ind.  95, 
S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  670, 

133,  260,  612,  613 
Perkins  v.  Hendryx,  40  Fed.  R. 

657,  608 

Perkins  v.  Loekwood,  100  Mass. 

249  567 

Pe*rki'ns  v.  McDowell,  3  Wyo.  328, 

S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  71,  1157 

Perkins  v.  Moore,  16  Ala.  17,  1178 
Perkins  v.  Perkins,  39  N.  H.  161,  679 
Perkins  v.  Rogers,  35  Ind.  124,  381 
Perkins  v.   Stickney,   132    Mass. 

217,  740 

Perkins  v.  Wakeham,  86  Cal.  580, 

S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  67,  444 

Perkins  v.  Wing,    10  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  143,  596 

Permstick,  In  re,  3  Wash.  672,  S. 

C.  28  Am.  St.  R.  80,  340 

Perrill  v.  Nichols,  89  Ind.  444,  362 
Perrine  V.Evans,  35  N.J.L.  221,  464 
Perrine  v.  Farr,  2  Zabr.  (N.   J.) 

356,  131,  317 

Perrv  v.  Beaupre,  6  Dak.  49,  110 

Perry  v.  Dover,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 

206,  456 

Perry  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

la.  106,  27 

Perrv  v.  Meddowcroft,   10  Beav. 

122,  274 

Perry  v.  Moore,  2  E,   D.   Smith 

(N.  Y.)  32,  590 

Perry  v   Morse,  57  Vt.  509,  242 

Perry  v.  Mulligan,  58  Ga.  479, 

•^  587,  1110 

Perrv  v.   Parker,  1  Wood  &  M. 

280,  480 

Perry  v.  Smith,  22  Vt.  301,  389 

Perry  v.  Somerby,  57  Me.  552,  469 
Perrin  v.  State,  8^  Wis.  1.35,  S.  C. 

.50  N.  W.  R.  516,  502,  505,  634 

Perriman  v.  Steggall,  9  Bing.  679,  580 
Perry  v.  Thornton,  7  R.  I.  15,  199 

Perry  v.  Wilson,  7  Mass.  393,  189 
Perrvman  v.  Greenville,  51  Ala. 

507,  343 

Perry's  Lessee    v.   Brainard,   11 

Ohio  442,  293 

Perteet  v.  People,  70  111.  171,  636 

Peru  V.  Bearss,  55  Ind.  576,  246 

Petefish  V.  Watkins,  124  111.  384, 

1160 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Peter  v.  State,  6  How.  (Miss.)  326,    230 
Peter  v.  Thiekstun,  51  Mich.  590,     556 
Peters  v.BalHstier,  3  Pick. (Mass.) 

495,  355 

Peters  v.  Banta,  120  Ind.  416,  S. 
C.  22  N.  E.  R.  95, 

621,  629,  1109,  1155 
Peters  v.  Craig,  6  Dana  (Ky.)  307, 

585,  586 
Peters  v.  Fogarty  (N.  J.),  26  Atl.feil.^il 
R.855,  1124 

Peters  v.Newkirk,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

103,  593 

Peters  v.  St.  Louis,   etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  59  Mo.  406,  608 

Petersilea    v.    Stone,   119    Mass. 

467,  214 

Peterson    v.    Gresham,  25    Ark. 

380,  1161 

Peterson  v.  Taylor,  15  Ga.  483,     1238 
Peterson  v.  Toner,  80  Mich.  350, 

S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  346,  1143 

Peterson  v.  United  States,2  Wash. 

C.  C.  36,  1104 

Petition  of  Crandall,  34  Wis.  177,     341 
Petition  of  Lake,  15  R.  I.  628,  S. 

C.  10  Atl.  R.  653,  436 

Petition  of  Newlin,  123  Pa.  St.  541, 

S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  737,  630 

Petri  v.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank, 

142  U.  S.  644,  312 

Petri  V.  First  National  Bank,  84 

Tex.212,  S.  C.  18S.W.  R.752,  644 
Petrie  v.  Hannay,  3  T.  R.  659,  1122 
Petrie  v.  Lane,  58  Mich.  527,  1158 
Petry  v.  Ambrosher,  100  Ind.  510,  484 
Pettes  V.  Bingham,  10  N.  H.  514,  1106 
Pettibone  v.  Stevens,  15  Conn,  19, 

S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  57,  541 

Pettigrew  v.  Barnum,  11  Md.  434, 
S.  C.  69  Am.  Dec.  212, 

511,  712,  1130,  1215 
Pettis  V.  Johnson,  56  Ind.  139,  560 
Pettis  V.  Kellogg,  7  Cush.  456,  33 

Pettit  V.  State  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R. 

1118,  618,  623 

Petty,  In  re,  22  Kan.  477,  341 

Petty  V.  Frick  Co.,  86  Va.  501,  S. 

C.  10  S.  E.  R.  886,  608,  612,  613 

Pettybone  v.  Phelps,  13  Conn.  445, 

1158 
Peyton,  In  re,  12  Kan.  398,  639 

Pevton  V.  Ayres,  2  Md.  Ch.  64,  33 
Pfantz  V.  Culver,  13  la.  312,  1197 

Pharis  v.  Geer,  31  Hun  443,  408 

Pharo  V.  Johnson,  15  la.  560,  1233 
Pharr  v.  Bachelor,  3  Ala.  237,  1025 
Phelan  v.  Ganebin,  5  Col.  14,  155 

Phelan  v.  Gardner,  43  Cal.  306, 

301,  1176 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CCXl 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pji 
Phelps  V.  Baker,  (iO  Bar!).  107,        289 
Phelps  V.  Borland,  lO^  N.  Y.  406, 

8.  C.  57  Am.  R.  755,  285 

Phelps  V.  Brewer,  9  Cush.  390,  S. 

C.  57  Am.  Dec.  5f),  303 

Phelps  V.  Dolan,  75  111.  90,  594 

Phelps  V,  Hall,  2  Tyler  (Vt.)  401, 

653 
Phelps  V.  Hartwell,  1  Mass.  71,  679 
Phelps  V.  Jenkins,  4  Seam.  111. 

48,  1054 

Phelps  V.  Mayer,  15  How.  (U.  S.) 

160,  1078 

Phelps  V.  McDonald,  99  U.  S.  298, 

282 
Phelps  V.  Smith,  116  Imi.  387,  S. 

C.  17  N.  K.  R.  ()02,  540,  982,  1149 
Phelps  V.  Tilton,  17  Ind.  423,  1164 
Phelps  V.  Winona,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Am. 

St.  R.  867,  739 

Phelps  V.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

37  Minn.  485,  S.  C.  35  N.  W.  R. 

273,  1046 

Phenix  v.  Baldwin,  14  AVend.  (N. 

Y.)  62,  512 

Philadelphia  v.  Miller,  49  Pa.  St. 

440,  425 

Philadelphia  v.  Phila.,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  58  Pa.  253,  366 

Phila<lelphia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harper, 

29  .Md.  330,  1081 

Philailelphia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howard, 

13  How.  (U.  S.)  307,  512 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Water- 
man, 54  Pa.  St.  337,  1134 
Philadelphia  Citv  Pass.  Ry.  Co. 

V.  Hassard,  75  Pa.  St.  376,  547 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R.   Co.  v. 

Fronk,  67  Md.  339,  546 

Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Stiinpson,  14  Pet.  448,  707,  783 

Philbrick  v.  Preble,  18  Me.  255,  S. 

C.  36  Am.  Dec.  718,  594 

Philibert  v.   Burch,   4  Mo.  App. 

470,  537 

Phillip  V.  Evre,  6Q.  B.  1,  218 

Phillip  V.  Gallant,  62  N.  Y.  256,  149 
Phillip's  Appeal,  68  Pa.  St.  130,  201 
Phillips'  Estate,   48  Phila.  Legal 

Int.  232,  574 

Phillips,  Ex  parte,  57  Miss.  357,  336 
Phillips  V.  Beene,  38  Ala.  248,  1238 
Phillii>s  V.  Bordman,  4  Allen  147,  484 
Phillips  V.  Bossard,  35  Fed.   R. 

99,  1177 

Phillips  V.  Duean,  21  Ohio  St.  466, 

S.  C.  8  Am.  R.  66,  1192 

Phillips  V.  P>vans.  64  Mo.  17,  434 

Phillips  V.  Foxall,  L.  R.,  7  Q.  B. 

666,  407 


.  l-<!(rJ,  Vol.  II,j'i>.  00:^-1244.] 
Phillips  V.  Hopwood,  10  B.  &  C. 

39  3.38 

Philiips  V.  Kent,  23  N.  .1.  L.  155,  371 
Phillips  V.  Kingtield,  19  Me.  375, 

S.  C.  36  Am.  Dec.  760,  803,  805 

Phillips  V.   Library    Co.,    141  Pa. 

462,  S.  C.  21   All.  R.  640,  442 

Phillips  V.  MciMiire,  73  (ia.  517,  550 
Phillips  V.  Preston,  5  How.  278,  1131 
Phillips  V.  Pullen,50  N.  J.  L.439, 

1053 
Phillips  V.  Smoot,  1  Mackey  478,  1% 
Phillips  V.  Thorn,  84  Ind.  84, 

798,  806 
Phillips  V.  Welch,  11  Nev.  187,  255 
Pliillipsburgh  Bank  v.  Fulner,  31 

iN.J.L.  52,  1159 

Philpot  V.  Tavlor,  75  111.  309,  714 

Philpott  V.  Brown,  16  Neb.  387,  S. 

C.  20  N.  W.  R.  288,  1180 

Phinney  v.  Donahue,  67  la.  192,  432 
Phipps  V.  Ingram,  3  Dowl.  669, 

593,  601 
Phipps  V.  Tompkins,  50  Ga.  641,  596 
Phfenix    Ins.    Co.    v.   Allen,    11 

Mich.  501,  555,822 

Phtenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Copeland,  86 

Ala.  551,  783 

Pho-nix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Moog,81  Ala. 

335,  '        1123 

Pha?nix   Ins.   Co.  v.  Munday,  5 

Coldw.  (Tenn.)  547,  .557 

Phvsioc  V.  Sliea,  75  Ga.  466,  1123 

Piatt  V.  Vattier,  9  Pet.  405,  1128 

Picard  V.  Collins,  23  Barb.  (N.  Y) 

444,  794 

Pickard  v.  Bryant,  92  Mich.  430, 

S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  788,  783,  794 

Pickel  V.  Isgrigg,  6  Fed.  R.  676, 

1025,  1029,  1034 
Pickens  v.  Hobbs,  42  Ind.  270, 

17S.  662.  11.58 
Pickens  v.Y^arbrough,  30  Ala.  408,  2.59 
Pickering  v.  Frink,  62  N.  11.  342,  382 
Pickering  v.  Lomax,  120  111.  289, 

S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  175,  448 

Pickering  v.  ^lississippi,  etc.,  Co., 

47  Mo.  457,  1209 

Pickett  V.  Ferguson,  45  .Vrk.  177,  2S2 
Pickett  V.  Filer,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Fed. 

R.  313,  192 

Picquet  v.  Swan,  5  Mason  35,  280 

Pieart  v.  Chicaso,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

82  la.    148,  s:  C.  47  N.'W.  R. 

1017,  1096 

Piedmont  Coal  Co.  v.  Green.  3  W. 

Va.  54,  S.  C.  98  Am.  Dec.  799,       231 
Piedmont,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buxton,  105 

N.  C.  74,  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R.  264, 

2.54,  1048 


ccxu 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Fac/es,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Pielke  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

5  Dak.  444,  8.  C.  41    N.  AV.  R. 

669,  534 

Pierce,  In  re,  44  Wis.  411,  243,  3:-;6 
Pierce  v.  Bicknell,  11  Kan.  262,  1214 
Pierce  v.  Carelton,  12  111.  358,  S. 

C.  54  Am.  Dec.  405,         197,  473,  474 
Pierce  v.  Equitable,  etc..  Society, 

145  Mass.  56,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R. 

433,  010 

Pierce  v.  Faunce,  53  Me.  351,  201 

Pierce  v.  Hasbrouck,  49  111.  23,  1116 
Pierce  v.  Kirby,  21  Wis.  124,  576 

Pierce  v.  Langdon,  2  Idaho  878,  S. 

C.  28Pac.  R.  401,  529 

Pierce  v.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  138  Mass. 

151,  394 

Pierce   v.    McConnell,    7   Blackf. 

170,  1216 

Pierce  v.  O'Brien,  129  Mass.  413, 

S.  C.  37  Am.  R.  360,  302 

Pierce  v.  Railroad  Co.,  36  Wis. 

286,  474 

Pierce  v.  Randolph,  12  Tex.  290,  537 
Pierce  v.  Schaden,  62  Cal.  283,  1109 
Pierce  v.  Sevmour,  52  Wis.  272,  S. 

C.  38  Am."  R.  737,  383 

Pierce  v.  Sheldon,  13  Johns.  491,  224 
Pierce  v.  State,  13  N.  H.  536,  657,  667 
Pierce  v.  Strickland,  2  Story  292,  435 
Piercv  v.  Piercv,  5  W.Va.  199,  443 
Pierse  v.  West," 29  Ind.  266,  1137 

Piersol  v.  Neill,  63  Pa.  St.  420,  1052 
Pierson  v.  Finney,  37  111.  29,  627 

Pierson  v.  McCahill,  22  Cal.  127,  628 
Pierson  v.  McCahill,  23  Cal.  249,  492 
Pierson  v.  People,  79  N.  Y.  424, 

S.  C.  35  Am.  R.  524,  653 

Pierson  v.  State,  21  Tex.  App.  14, 

S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  468,  630 

Pierson  v.  State,  11  Ind.  341,  655 

Pifher  v.  Lodge,  16  Serg.&  R. (Pa.) 

214,  659 

Pigg  V.  State,  9  Ind.  363,  1184 

Piggot  V.  Rush,  4  Ad.  &  El.  912,  381 
Piggott  V.  Ramey,  1  Scam.  (111.) 

145,  176 

Piggott  V.  Snell,  59  111.  106,  4.38 

Pike  V.  Evans,  15  .lohns.  210,  1161 
Pike  V.  Gage,9  Foster  (N.  H.)  461,  579 
Pike  V.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  39  Fed.  R.  255,  534 

Pike  V.  Megoun,  44  Mo.  491,  202 

Pike  V.  Stallings,  71  Ga.  860,  593 

Pike  Co.  V.  The  Griffin,  etc.,  Co., 

15Ga.  .39,  658 

Pillsburv  V.  Sweet,  80  Me.  .392,  S. 

C.  14  Atl.  R.  742,  1060 

Pi  Hups  V.  Daggs,.38  Mo.  App.  367,  1076 
Pirn  V.  Grazebrook,  2  C.  B.  429,     1172 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Pimental  v.  San  Francisco,  21  Cal. 

351,  378 

Pinckney  v.  Burrage,  31  N.  J.  L. 

21,  361 

Pincknev  v.  Hagerman,  4  Lans. 

374,     '  262 

Pincus  V.  Dowd,  11  Mont.  88,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  393,  178 

Pinder  v.  State,  27  Fla.  370,  S.  C. 

8  So.  R.  837,  663 

Pingree  v.  Coffin,  12  Gray  288,  280 
Pinkerton  v.  Ledoux,129U.  S.  346,  533 
Pinney  v.  Cahill,  48  Mich.  584,  778 
Pioneer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phcenix,  etc., 

Co.,  110  N.  Car.  176,  S.  C.  14  S. 

E.  R.  731,  1092 

Piper  V.  Hoard,  107  N.Y.  67,  S.  C. 

1  Am.  St.  R.  785,  380 

Piper  V.  White,  56  Pa.  St.  90,  706 

Pipher  v.  Fordvce,  88  Ind.  436,  196 
Pipkin  V.  Allen,  29  Mo.  229,  1179 

Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoup,  6  Ohio  342, 

124,  253,  1205 
Pitkin  V.  Noyes,  48  N.  H.  294,  567 
Pitman  v.  United  States,  45  Fed. 

R. 159,  153 

Pitney  v.  Glens  Falls  Ins.  Co.,  65 

N.  Y.  6,  537 

Pitt  V.  Emmons,  92  Mich.  542,  S. 

C.  52N.  W.  R.  1004,  506 

Pittock  V.  O'Neill,  63  Pa.  St.  253,  540 
Pittman  v.  Wakefield,  90  Ky.  171, 

S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  525,  254 

Pitts  V.  Storage  Co.  (Tex.  App.), 

18  S.  W.  R.  465,  1025 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. v.  Adams, 

105  Ind.  151,  S.  C.  5  N.  E.  R. 

187,  526,  548,  1109 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

.53  111.  80,  1191 

Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Conway,  57  Ind.  52,  706 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.R.Co.v.  Evans, 

53  Pa.  St.  250,  530,  1106 

Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co. 

V.  Hine,  25  Ohio  St.  629,  374 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hixon, 

110  Ind  225,  1095 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Probst,  30 

Ohio  St.  104,  1231 

Pittsburgh,   etc..  Railway  Co.  v. 

Ramsey,  22  Wall.  322,  148 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ruby,  38 

Ind.  294,  1100 

Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Spencer,  98  Ind.  186, 

525,  530,  548,  1106 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  The- 
obald, 5]  Ind.  246,  514 
Pittsburg  V.Walter,  69  Pa.  St.  365,    298 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CCXlll 


[References  are  to  Pages,  \'<il.  /,  pp 
Pitzer  V.  Burns,  7  W.  Va.  6.:!,  377 

Pitzer  V.  Iiidianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  80  Ind.  oW),  1089,  1232 

Place  V.  Manufacturing,  etc.,  Co., 

28  Barb.  503,  224 

Place  V.  .Minster,  65  N.  Y.  89,  706 

Plainfield  v.  Plainfleld,   67   Wis. 

525,  248,  1138 

Piano  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rasey,  69  Wis. 

246,  609 

Plant  V.  Edwards,  85  Ind.  588,       1049 

Planters',  etc., Bank  v.  Leavens, 

4  Ala.  753,  473 

Planters'  Bank  v.  Neelv,  7  How. 

(Miss.)  80,  S.  C.  40  Am.  Dec. 

51,  254,492 

Planters'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  47 

Miss.  200,  123,  248,  297 

Plainer  v.  Platner,  78  N.  Y.  90, 

112,  720 
Piatt  V.  Continental,  etc.,  Co.,  62 

Vt.  166,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  637,  1232 
Piatt  V.  Monroe,  34  Barb.  291,  176 
Piatt  V.   Smith,    14  Johns.  368, 

363,  594 
Piatt  V.  Stewart,  10  Mich.  260,  297 
Platte  County  v.  Marshall,  10  Mo. 

346,  182 

Platter  v.  Board,  103  Ind.  360,  404 
Plattsmouth  v.  Boeck,  32  Neb.  297, 

S.  C.  49N.  W.  R.  167,  1233 

Player  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  62 

la.  723,  797 

Pleasant  v.  State,    15    Ark.  624, 

696,1804 
Pleasants   v.  Fant,  22  Wall.  116, 

1049,  1053 
Pledger  v.  State,  77  Ga.  242,  S.  C. 

3  S.  E.  R.  320,  1061 

Plemmons  v.  Southern  Imp.  Co., 

108  N.  Car.  614,  S.  C.  13  S.  E. 

R.  188,  440 

Plews  V.  Middleton,  6  Q.  B.  845,  592 
Plow  Co.  V.  Deusch,  16  Neb.  384,  661 
Plowman  v.  Henderson,  59  Ala. 

559,  217, 218 

Plumb  V.  Fluitt.  2  Anstr.  428,  549 

Plumer  v.  The  Board,  46  Wis.  163, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  416,  170 

Plumley   v.   State,   8    Tex.   App. 

529,  1113 

Plummer  v.  Dill,  156  :Mass.  426, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  128.  369 

Plummer  v.  :Mold.  22  .Minn.  15,  1213 
Plummerv.  (iranite  MountaiuCo., 

55  Fed.  R.  755,  1159 

Plummer  v.  People.  74  111.  361,        6(>1 
Phinimer  v.  Sanders,  55  N.  H.  23,     601 
Plummer  v.    Waterville,   32  Me. 
.  566,  322 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Plunkett  V.  Black,  117  Ind.  14,         192 
Plunkett  V.  Minneapolis, etc.,  Co., 

79  Wis.  222,  S.  C.  48  N.   W.  R. 

519,  1211,  1213 

Plvmpton  V.  Sapp,  55  la.  195,  527 

Poage  V.  State,  43  Tex.  454,  33 

Poe  V.  Duck,  5  M<1.  1,  28.5 

Poertner  v.  Poertner,  6(5  Wis.  644, 

S.  C.  29  N.  W.  R.  386,  1071 

Pogue  V.  Jovner,  7  Ark. 462,  669 

Poin.lexter  v.Burwell,  82  Va.  507,  281 
Polk  V.  State,  45  Ark.  165,  660 

Polk  Countv  V.  Hierb,  37  la.  .361,  333 
Polheinusv;  Ileiiiian,  50  Cal.4::i8,  1118 
Police  Jurv  v.   United  States,  60 

Fed.  R.  249,  1178 

Polin  V.  State,  14  Neb.  540,  1220 

Poling  V.  Ohio  River  R.   R.  Co., 

38  W.  Va.  645,  S.  C.  18  S.  E.  R. 

782,  1052 

Pollak  V.  Davidson,  87  Ala.  551,  549 
Pollard  V.  Lively,  2  Gratt.   (Va.) 

216,  512 

Pollard  V.  Ross,  5  Mass.  319,  471 

Pollard   V.    Rutter,  35    111.    App. 

370,  1243 

Pollard  V.  Wagener,  13  Wis.  569, 

266,  298,  4.55,  456 
PoUeys  V.  Black  River,  etc.,  Co., 

113  U.  S.  81,  1203 

Pollitz  v.  Schell,  30  Fed.  R.  421,  1193 
Pollock  v.  Pollock,  71  N.  Y.  137,  794 
Pollock  v. Sutherlin, 25  Gratt. (Va.) 

78,  596 

Pomeroy  v.  Bank  of  Indiana,   1 

Wall.  592,  1238 

Pomeroy  v.  Betts,  31  Mo.  419, 

444.  447,  614 
Pomroy  V.Preston,  2  Caines 373,  1242 
Ponca  V.  Crawford,  18  Neb.  551,  S. 

C.  25  N.  W.  R.  365,  704 

Ponce  V.  Underwood,  .55  Ga.  601,  259 
Pond  V.  Grilfin,  1  Ala.  678.  468 

Pond  V.  Harris.  113  Mass.  114,  586 
Pond  V.  State,  55  Ala.  196,  910 

Ponder  v.  Moselev,  2  Fla.  207,  S. 

C.  48  Am.  Dec.  "194,  609 

Pontius  V.  People,  82  N.  Y.  339,  720 
Pool  V.  Devers,  30  Ala.  672.  624 

Pool  V.  Gramling,  88  Ga.  653,  S.  C. 

16  S.  E.  R.  52,  2.34 

Pool  V.  Ilennessv,  39  la.  192,  S. 

C.  18  Am.  R.  44.  .590 

Pool  V.  Mvers,  21  Mi.-^s.  466,  .503,  521 
Pool  V.Webster,  3  Metc.(Kv.)278,  462 
Poole  V.  McLeod,  1  Sm.  t^   Mar. 

391,  190 

Poole  V.  Fleeger,  11  Pet.  185.  1224 
Poole  V.  Mitchell,  1  Hill  (S.  Car.) 

404,  


CCXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Feferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Poor  V.  Merrill,  68  la.  436,  1050 

Pope  V.  Harrison,  16  Lea  (Tenn.) 

82,  315 

Pope  V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  99 

Mo.  400,  1027 

Pope  V.  Latham,  1  Ark.  66,  1170 

Pope  V.  Pope,  4  Pick.  129,  1164 

Pope  V,  State,  36  Miss.  121,  1124, 1159 
Poptinger  v.  Yutte,  102  N.  Y.  38,  119 
Pophef  V.  Johnson,  108  Ind.  401,  197 
Popper  V.  Scheider,  7  Abb.  Pr.  N. 

S.  (N.  Y.)  56,  497 

Porter  v.  Chicago  &  N.W.  R.  Co., 

1  Neb.  14,  612 

Porter  v.  Herman,  8  Cal.  619,  319 

Porter  v.  Hilderbrand,  14  Pa.  St. 


129, 
Porter  v 

629, 
Porter  v 

229, 
Porter  v. 
Porter  v 


Lyle,  66  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
Patterson,   15   Pa.   St. 


463 

626 

556 
468 


1187 


Pico,  55  Cal.  165, 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  120 

U.  S.  649, 
Porter  v.  Purdy,  29  N.  Y.  106,  S. 

C.  86  Am.  Dec.  283, 

134  136  324  325 
Porter  v.  Scott,  7  Cal.  312,  '  595^  600 
Porter  v.  State,  2  Ind.  435,  169,  695 
Porter  v.  State,  5  Mo.  538,  641 

Porter  v.  Still,  63  Miss.  357,  674 

Porter  v.  Throop,  47  Mich.  313,  S. 

C.  11  N.  W.  R.  174,  692 

Porter  v.  Vandercook,  11  Wis.  70, 

433 
Porter  v.  Waltz,  108  Ind.  40, 
Porter  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  97  N. 

Car.  66, 
Porter  v.  Williams.  9  N.  Y.  142, 
Portier  v.  Barclay,  15  Ala.  439, 
Portland  v.  Baker,  8  Ore.  356, 
Portland  Bank  v.  Maine  Bank,  11 

Mass.  204, 
Portsmouth    v.   Norfolk   Co.,   31 

Gratt.  (Va.)  727, 
Posey  V.  Eaton,  9  Lea  500, 
Poseyville,  Town  of,  v.  Lewis,  126 

Ind.  80, 
Post  V.  Bird,  28  Fla.  1,  S.  C.  9  So 

R.  888, 
Post  V.  Harper,  61  Mich.  434,  S. 

C.  28N.  W.  R.  161, 
Post  V.  Pearson,  108  U.  S.  418,  S. 

C.  2  Sup.  Ct.  R.  799, 
Postv.  Supervisors,  105  U.  S.667, 
Posthlewaite  v.  Ghiselin,  97  Mo. 

420,  S.  C.  10  S.W.  R.  482,         1.33,  239 
Poteet  V.  County  of  Cabell,  30  W. 

Va.  58,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  97, 

1227,  1242 


1096 

'l099 
493 
504 


379 

599 
218 

1097 

'l079 

'  183 

1179 
545 


,  1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Potier  V.  Barclay,  15  Ala.  439,         414 
Potter  V.  Adams  Ex.,  24  Mo.  159, 

300,  345 
Potter  V.  Eaton,  26  Wis.  382,  183 

Potter  V.  John  Hutchinson  Mfg. 

Co.,  87  Mich.  59,  S.  C.  49  N.  W. 

R.  517,  433 

Potter  V.    McCormack,   127  Ind. 

439,  1154 

Potter  V.  Mellin,  36  Minn.  122,  1043 
Potter  V.  Merchants'  Bank,  28  N. 

Y.  641,  316,  329 

Potter  V.  Parsons,  14  la.  286,  564 

Potter  V.  Seale,  8  Cal.  217,  544,  552 
Potter  V.  Smith,  36  Ind.  231,  373 

Potter  V.  State,  2  Ind.  435,  163 

Potter  V.  Sterrett,  24  Pa.  St.  411, 

586,  591 
Potter  V.  Wooster,  10  Iowa  334,  1054 
Potts  V.  Davenport,  79  111.  455,  543 
Potts  V.  House,  6  Ga.  324,  S.  C.  50 

Am.  Dec.  329,  1069 

Potts  V.  Plaisted,  30  Mich.  149,  401 
Pouder  v.  Catterson,  127  Ind.  434, 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  66,  410,  493 

Poullain  v.  Poullain,  72  Ga.  412,  381 
Poullain  v.  Poullain,  76  Ga.  420, 

S.  C.  4  S.  E.  R.  92,  1079 

Poullain  v.  Poullain,  79  Ga.  11,  S. 

C.  4S.  E.  R.  81,  1165 

Poulson  v.  Collier,  18  Mo.  App. 

583,  1103 

Poultnev  V.  Packman,  10  Abb.  N. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  252,  588 

Poultney  v.  Glover,  23  Vt.  328,  1225 
Pounds  V.  Hammer,  57  Ala.  342,  472 
Powder  Co.  v.  Oakdale,  etc.,  Co., 

14  Phila.  (Pa.)  166,  440 

Powder  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Custer 

County,  9  Mont.  145,  S.  C.  22 

Pac.  R.  383,  1157 

Powe  V.  Powe,  42  Ala.  113,  401 

Powell  V.  Augusta,  etc.,  Co.,  77 

Ga.  192,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  757, 

712,  1215 
Powell  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  22 

111.  App.  409,  413 

Powell  V.  Chittick  (la.),  56  N.W. 

R.  652,  1093 

Powell  V.  Clement,  78  111.  20,  1201 
Powell  V.  Davis,  19  Tex.  380,  552 

Powell  V.  Haley,  28  Tex.  52,  668 

Powell  V.  Heisler,  45  Minn.  549,  111 
Powell  V.  Howell,  21  Ga.  214,  1167 
Powell  V.  Jopling,  2  Jones  L.  (N. 

C.)  400,  177 

Powell  V.  Messer,  18  Tex.  401,  1071 
Powell  V.  Murray,  10  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

256,  377 

Powell  V.  North,  3  Ind.  392,  128 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXV 


ilii'ferences  are  to  Pafjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Powell  V.  Powell,  104  Ind.  18,  S. 

C.  3  N.  E.  R.  039,  217,  232 

Powell  V.  Riley,   15  Lea  (Tenn.) 

153,  601 

Powell  V.  State,  13  Tex,  App.  244,  695 
Powell  V.  Sticknev,  88  Ind.  310,  540 
Powell  V.  Sutro,  80  Cal.  550,  S.  C. 

22  Pac.  R.  308,  636 

Power  V.  Bowdle  (N.  Dak.),  54  N. 

W.  R.  404,  557 

Power  V.  Gum,  6  Mont.  5,  529 

Power  V.  Power,7  Watts(Pa.)  205  585 
Powers  V.  Citv  Council,  etc.,  116 

Mass.  84,     '  299 

Powers  V.  Council  Bluffs, 45  Ia.652, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  R.  792,  369 

Powers  V.  Fletcher,  84  Ind.  154,  1132 
Powers  V.  Leach,  26  Vt.  270,  799 

Powers  V.  Mitchell,  77  Me.  361,  823 
Powers  V.   Presgroves,   38  Miss. 

227,  667 

Powers  V.  Provident,  etc.,  Inst., 

122  Mass.  443,  1139 

Powers  V.  State,  87  Ind.  97,  1114 

Powers  V.  State,  87  Ind.  144,  1059 

Poyer  v.  Village  of   Desplaines, 

124  111.  310,  S.  C.   15  N.  E.  R. 

768,  488 

Prather  v.  Pritchard.  26  Ind.  65,  508 
Prather  v.  Ross,  17  Ind.  495,  537 

Prather  v.  Snead,  12  Kan.  447,  1060 
Pratt  V.  Chase,  44  N.  Y.  597,  284 

Pratt  V.  Ogden,  34  N.  Y.  20,  1068 

Pratt  V.  Pond,  5  Allen  59,  132 

Pratt  V.  Pratt,  157  Mass.  503,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  747,  171 

Pratt  V.  Rice,  7  Nev.  123, 

181,  636,  1210,  1223 
Pratt  V.  State,  56  Ind.  179,  1070 

Pray  v.  Garcelon,  17  Me.  145,  1041 
Preble  v.  Bates,  40  Fed.  R.  745, 

1236,  1238 
Preble  v.  Bates,  37  Fed.  R.  772.  1167 
Prendible  v.   Connecticut    River 

Mfg.Co.(Mass.),35N.E.R.675,  740 
Prentice  v.  Roberts,  49  Me.  127,  806 
Prentice  v.  Stefan,  72  Wis.  151, 

S.  C.  39  N.  AV.  R.  364,  434 

Prentice  v.  Zane,  8  How.  (U.  S.) 

470,  1103,  1105 

Prentis  v.  Rice,  2  Done.  (Mich.) 

296,  1181 

Prentiss  v.  Barton,  1  Brock  389,  311 
Prentiss  v.  Blake.  34  Vt.  460,  541 

Prentiss  v.  Bliss,  4  Vt.  513,  S.  C. 

24  Am.  Dec.  631,  197 

Prentiss  v.  Russ,  16  l\Ie.  .30,  374 

Prentiss  Tool  Co.  v.  Schirmer,  45 

X.  Y.  S.  Rep.  20,  S.  C.  17  N.  Y. 

Supp.  662,  541 


.  1-(J0'J,  ]'ul.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Prescotl  Bank  v.  Caverly,  7  Gray 

(Ma.ss.;  217,  .555 

Prescott  v.  Everts,  4  Wis.  314,  400 
Prescott  v.  Fellows,  51  N.  H.  9,  S. 

C.  77  Am.  Dec.  752,  601 

Prescott  V.Ward,  10  Allen  (Mass.) 

203,  797 

President  v.  Parks,  74  Md.  282,  S. 

C.  22  Atl.  R.  399,  792 

President,  etc.,  v.  Thompson,  20 

111.  197,  144 

Preslar    v.    Stallworth,    37    Ala. 

402.  364 

Presley   v.   Anderson,    42    Miss. 

274,  4.56 

Pressly  v.  Harrison,  102  Ind.  14,  494 
Pressly  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  171,  494 
Preston  v.  Bowers,  13  Ohio  St,  1, 

S.  C.  82  Am.  Dec.  4.30,  1077 

Preston  v.  Dunn.  25  Ala.  507,  294,  443 
Preston  v.  Hill,  50  Cal.  43,  S.  C. 

19  Am.  R.  647,  206 

Preston  v.  Luck,  L.  R,,  27  Ch,  Div. 

497,  480 

Preston  v.  Preston,  95  U.  S.  200,  377 
Preston  v,  Ricketts,91  Mo.  320,  1176 
Preston  v,  Sanford,  21  Ind,  156. 

608,  1214 
Preston  v.  Simons,  1  Rich.  L,  (S. 

Car.)  262,  558 

Preston  v.  AValker,  26  la.  205,  669 
Preswood    v.    State,    3     Heisk, 

(Tenn.)  468,  666 

Prezinger  v.  Fording.  114  Ind.  599, 

S.  C.  16  N.  E.  R.  499,  145 

Prezinger  v.   Harness,    114    In<l. 

491.  S.  C.  16N.  E.  R.  495,  145 

Price,  In  re,  6  New  South  Wales 

140,  342 

Price  V.  Brown,  98  N.  Y.  388, 

578,  593,  722 
Price  V.  Byne,  57  Ga.  176,  576 

Price  V.  Commissioners,  77   Va. 

393,  693,  1114 

Price  V.  Emerson,  16  La,  Ann.  95,  509 
Price  V.  Hnllis.  1  M.  &  S.  105.  572 
Price  V.  Lambert.  3  N.  .1.  L.  122,  1123 
Price  V.  Muifonl,  107  N.  Y.  303,  372 
Price  V.  Pankhurst.  .^3  Fed.  312,  1079 
Price  V.  People.  131  III.  223.  S.  C. 

23  N.  E.  R.  6.39.  623.  6.30 

Price  V.  Peters.l5  Abb.  Pr.  R.  197,  146 
Pri«-e  V.  Powell,  3  N.  Y.  322,  1225 

Price   V.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.  (S, 

Car.),  17  S.  E.  R.  7.32.  1041 

Price  V.  State.  8  (4111  (Md.)  295,  6.32 
Price  V.  Thomas.  4  M.l.  514.  595 

Price  v.Vanstone.  40  Mo.  App.  207.  .S90 
Priest    v.   Deaver,    22    Mo.    .\pp. 

276,  1120 


CCXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  /,  pp 
Prigg  V.  Adams,  2  Salk.  674,  264 

Prilliman  v.  Mendeuhall,  120  Ind. 

279,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  247,     149,  1147 
Prime  v.  Foote,  63  N.  H.  52,  294 

Primm  v.  Haren,  27  Mo.  205,  539 

Prince  v.Gandawav,157  Mass.  147, 

S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R!  653,  603 

Prince  v.  Heeuan,  5  Minn.  341,  472 
Prince  v.  Lvnch,  38  Cal.  528,  1151 
Princeton  v".  Gebliart,  61  Ind.  187,  392 
Prindle  v.  Campbell,  7  Mackey(D. 

C.)  598,  1226 

Pringle  v.  Leverich,  97  N.  Y.  181,  720 
Printz  V.  People,  42  Mich.  144,  739 
Pritchard  v.  Bartholomew,  45  Ind. 

219,  255 

Pritchard  v.   Hennessey,  1  Gray 

294,  '  1118 

Proctor  V.  De  Camp,  83  Ind.  559, 

821,  823 
Proctor  V.  Lewis,  50  Mich.  329,  1194 
Proctor  V.  Walker,  12  Ind.  660,  436 
Proprietary  v.  Ralston,  1  Dall.  18, 

1025,  1031 
Proprietors    v.   Frye,   5    Greenl. 

(Me.)  38,  581 

Proprietors,  etc.,   v.  Proprietors, 

85  Me.  175,  S.  C.  27  Atl.  R.  93,     478 
Prosser  v.  Warner,  47  Vt.  667,  S. 

C.  19  Am.  R.  132,  288 

Prothero  v.  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co., 

134  Ind.  431,  1072 

Prout  V.  People,  83  111.  154,  451 

Providence,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Phalen, 

12  R.  I.  495,  1149 

Providence,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barney, 

14  R.  I.  18,  1149 

Providence  Tool  Co.  v.  Prader,  32 

Cal.  634,  1197 

Provost  V.  McEncroe,  102  N.  Y. 

650,  1045 

Prussel  V.  Knowles,  5  Miss.  90,  636 
Pryor  v.  Downey,  50  Cal.  388,  424 
Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College, 

17  Wall.  521,  284,  443 

Puckett  V.  Graves,  6  Smed.  &  M. 

384,  1223 

Pudney  V.  Burkhart,  62  Ind.  179,  1213 
Puetz  V.  Bransford,  32   Fed.  R. 

P]Q  1177 

Pueh'v.  McCarty,  44  Ga.  383,  540 

Pu^h  V.  McCue,  86  Va.  475,  327 

Pugh   V.  State,  2  Head  (Tenn.) 

227,  163 

Pulaski    V.   Ward,   2  Rich.    (So. 

Car.)  119,  513 

Pullan  V.  Kinsinger,  2  Abbott  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  94,  241 

Pullen  V.  Glidden,  68  Me.  559,  552 
Pullen  V.  Monk,  82  Me.  412,  312 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Pulliam  V.  Pensoneau,  33  111.  375,     599 
Pulling    V.    Supervisors,    3    Wis. 

337,  558 

Pullman  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co., 

4  Biss.  35,  195 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central,  etc., 

Co.,  139  U.  S.  62,  110 

Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Har- 

kins,  55  Fed.  R.  932,  789 

Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.v.Laack, 

143  111.  242,  S.   C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

285,  S.  C.  18  L.  R.  A.  215,  1056 

Pulsifer  v.  Shepard,  36  111.  512,       401 
Purcell  v.  English,  86  Ind.  34,  S. 

C.  44  Am.  R.  255, 

548,  1050,  1051,  1053 
Purdon  V.  Seligman,  78  Mich.  132, 

S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1045,  367 

Purnell  v.  Purnell,  89  N.  Car.  42, 

695,  697 
Purple  V.  Horton,  13  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  9  S.  C.  27  Am.  Dec.  167,  654 
Purvis  V.  Coleman,  1  Bosw.  321,  546 
Pusey  V.  Gardner,  21  W.Va.  469,  377 
Pursley  v.  Hayes,  22  la.  11,  131,  317 
Puterbaugh  v.Puterbaugh,131  Ind. 

288,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  519,  1129 

Putman  v.  Lewis,  1  Fla.  455,  1179 

Putnam  v.Crombie,  34  Barb.  232,    1191 
Putnam  v.  Man,  3  Wend.  202,  S. 

C.  20  A.  Dec.  686,  326,  436 

Putnam  v.  Putnam,  8  Pick.  433,      292 


Q 


Quadras  v.  Webster,  11  La.  Ann. 

203,  513 

Quarl  v.  Abbott,  102  Ind.  233,  S. 

C.  52  Am.  R.  662, 

242,  272,  299,  426,  445 
Quayle  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  63 

Mo.  465,  165,  325 

Quebec  Bank  v.  Carroll,  1  S.  Dak. 

1,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R.  723,      254,  1183 
Quebec,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merchant,  133 

U.  S.  375,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

397,  536 

Queen  v.  Brewster,  8  U.  Can.  C. 

P.  208,  369 

Queen  v.  Charlesworth,  1  B.  &  S. 

460,  180 

Queen  Ins.  Co.  v.  Studebaker,  117 

Ind. 416,  1168 

Queen  v.  Martin,  L.  R.,  1  Cr.  C. 

R.  378,  815 

Queen  v.  Sadlers  Co.,  10  H.  of  L. 

Cas.  404,  546 

Queen's   Case,  2  Brod.  &   Bing. 

284,  .  800 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXVll 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Quereau  v.  Brown,  63  Hun  175,  S. 

C.  17  N.  Y.  Supp.  644,  1199 

Quick  V.  Sachsse,  31  Neb.  312,  S. 

C.  47  N.  W.  R.  935,  1240 

Quiglev  V.  Birdseve,  11  Mont.  439, 

S.  C."28  Pac.  R.'741,  185 

Quill  V.  Gallivan,  108  Ind.  235, 

1202,  1210 
Quiinby  v.  Blacker,  63  N.  H.  77,  367 
Quin  v".  Llovd,  41  "N.  Y.  349,  720 

Quinby  v.  Conhin,  104  U.  8.  420,     1127 
Quincv  V.  Young,  5  Daly  44,  1146 

Quinebaug  F>ank  v.  Leavens,    20 

Conn.  87,  S.C.  50  Am.  Dec.  272,  656 
Quinlan  v.  Myers,  29  Ohio  St.  500, 

165,  324 
Quinlan  v.  Welch,  141  N.  Y.  158, 

S.  C.  36  N.  E.  R.  12,  1042 

Quinn  v.  Fidelity  Association,  100 

Pa.  St.  382,  311 

Quinn  v.  Iliggins,  63  Wis.  664,  S. 

C.  24  N.  W.  R.  482,  741 

Quinn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  56 

Conn.  44,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.   Rep. 

284,  799 

Quinn  v.  People,  123  111.  333,  S.  C. 

15  N.  E.  R.  46,  109,  110 

Quinn  v.  People  (111.),  34  N.E.  R. 

148,  333 

Quinn  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co., 

29  S.  Car.  381,  S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A. 
682,  1068 

Quinn  v.  State,  123  Ind.  59,  630 

Quinn  v.  State,  130  Ind.  340,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.  R.  300,  1111 
Quinnev  v.  Stockbridge,  33  Wis. 

505,    '  527 

Quintana  v.  State,  29  Tex.  App. 

401,  S.  C.  25  Am.  St.  R.  730,  1226 
Quynn  v.  Brooke,  22  Md.  288,         172 


R 


Raborg  v.  Hammond,  2  Harr.  & 

J.  42,  314 

Raby  v.  Cell,  85  Pa.  St.  80,  1041 

Racer  v.  Baker,  113  Ind.  177, 

1156,  1158 
Radabangh  v.  Silvers    (Ind.),  35 

N.  E.  R.  694,  1232 

Radcliff  V.  Radford  96  Ind.  482,     1036 
Radclvffe   v.    Barton,    154    Mass. 

157," S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  148,  185 

Radde.  In  re,  9  N.  Y.  Supl.  812, 

S.  C.  2  Connoly  293,  248 

Rader    v.    Adamson,   37  W.  Va. 

582,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  808,  455 

Radford  v.  Folsom,  123  U.  S.  725, 

1203 


.  l-GOli,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Radford  v.  Fowlkes,  85  Va.  820, 

S.  C.  8  S.  E.  R.  817,  620 

Radford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  P^ast  Tenn., 

etc.,  Co.  (Tenn.),  21  S.  W.  R. 

329,  233 

Rafferty.  In  re,  1  Wash.  382,  340 

Rahm  v.  Deig,  121  Ind.  283,  S.  C. 

23  N.  E.  R.  141,  675,677 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Harris,  12  Wall. 

(r.  S.)65,  440 

Railroad  Co.  v. Hawthorne,  144  U. 

S.  202,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  591,  1032 
Railroatl  Co.  v.  Ketchum,  101  U. 

S.  289,  512 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U.  S. 

5,  347 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Maugans,  61  Md. 

53,  546 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Stout,   17   Wall. 

(T^  S.)  657,  547.  549 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Swasev,  23  Wall. 

405,  '  1184 

Railroad    Co.   v.   Thompson,    31 

Kan.  180,  S.  C.  1  Pac.  R.  622,  282 
Railsback  v.  Walke,  81  Ind.  409,  1238 
Railton  v.  Lauder,  26   111.    App. 

655  449 

Railway  Co.  v.  Cox,  145  U.  S.  593, 

S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  905,  1056 

Railwav  Co.  v.  Dunleavv,  129  III. 

132,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  15,  1090 

Railway  Co.  v.  Jewel,  37  Ohio  St. 

649,  195 

Railwav  Co.  v.  Orenbaum  (Tex.), 

16S.W.  R.  936,  1231 

Railwav  Co.  v.  Ramsey,  22  Wall. 

322,  "  300,  345 

Raimond   v.  Terrebonne  Parish, 

132  U.  S.  192,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  57,  526,  1138 

Rainer  v.  Cooper,  44  Kan.  762,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  186,  1025 

Rainwater  v.  Elmore,  1    Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  363,  695 

Ralph  V.  Lomer,  3  Wash.  401,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  760,  429 

Ralph  V.  R.  R.  Co..  32  Wis.  177,  918 
Ralston  v.  Lothian.  IS  Ind.  303,  622 
Ramsey  v.  Foy,  10  Ind.  493,  377 

Ramsey  v.  Horamel,  68  Wis.  12,  452 
Ramsey  v.  McCue,  21  Gratt.  (Va.) 

349,  532,  1134,  1135 

Rand   v.    Pantagraph    Stationery 

Co.,  1  Col.  App.  270,  S.  C.    28 

Pac.  R.  661,  433 

Rand,  Adm'r,  v.  Redington,  13  N. 

H.  72,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  475, 

590,  602 
Rand  v.  Vaughan,  1  Bine  N.  C. 

767.  ^  1171 


ecxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Randall  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  109  U.  S.  478,  S.  C.  3  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  322,  1053 

Randall  v.  Chase,  133  Mass.  210,     816 
Randall  v.  Circuit  Judge,  97  Mich. 

023,  S.  C.  55  N.  W.  R.  666,  1198 

Randall  v.  Gill,  77  Tex.  351,  S.  C. 

14  S.  W.  R.  134,  1234 

Randall  v.  Venable,   17  Fed.    R. 

162.  508 

Randall's  Adm'r  v.  Randall,64Vt. 

419,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  1011 

Randalls  v.  Wilson,  26  Mo.  76,        293 
Randle  v.  Williams,  18  Ark.  380,    258 
Randleman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Simmons, 
97  N.  Car.  89,  S.  C.  1  S.  E.  R. 
923,  332 

Randolph,  Ex  parte,  2  Brock.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  447,  115 

Randolph    v.    Kinney,    3    Rand. 

(Va.)  394,  239 

Randolph  v.  Lampkin,  90  Ky.  551, 

S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  538,  1120 

Randolph  v.  Little,  62  Ala.  396,  476 
Randolph  County  v.  Ralls,  18  111. 

29  346 

Ranev  v.  McRea,  14  Ga.  589,  333 

Rangel  v.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  642, 

S.  C.  3  S.  W.  R.  788,  736 

Ranger  v.   Great  Western,   etc., 

Co.,  5  H.  L.  Cases  72,  408 

Rank  v.  Hill,  2  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 

56,  S.  C.  37  Am.  Dec.  483,  598 

Rank  v.  Shewey,  4  Watts  (Pa.) 

218.  656 

Rankin  v.  Rothschild,78  Mich.  10, 

S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1077,  313,  496,  497 
Rankin  v.  Simmonds,  27  111.  352,  1223 
Rannells  v.  State,  18  Ind.  255,  621 
Ranney  v.  Higby,  5  Wis.  62,  559 

Ransom  v.  City  of  New  York,  20 

How.  (U.  S.)  581,  558 

Ransone  v.  Christian,  56  Ga.  351,  675 
Rape  V.  Heaton,  9  Wis.  328,  S.  C. 

76  Am.  Dec.  269,  606 

Rapp  V.  Kester,  125  Ind.  79,  149 

Rash  V.  State,  61  Ala.  89,  668 

Ratcliffe  v.  Anderson,31  Gratt.105, 

S.  C.  31  Am.  R.  716,  118 

RathV)un  v.  Ingals,  7  Wend.  320,  362 
Rathbun  v.  Ross,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

127,  803 

Rathburn  v.  Acker,  18  Barb.  393,  437 
Ratliff  V.  Stretch,  130  Ind.  282,  290 
Ratliffe  v.  County  Court,  etc.,  36 

W.Va.  202,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  1004,  133 
Raudebaugh  v.  Shelly,  6  Ohio  St. 

307,  '  679 

Raver  v.  Webster,  3  la.  502,  463 

Rawles  v.  State,  56  Ind.  433,  803 


1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Rawson  v.  Knight,  73  Me.  340,       506 
Rawson  v.  Powell,  36  Ga.  255,        161 
Rav  V.  Bell,  24  111.  444,  802 

RaV  V.  Doughty,  4  Blkf .  115,  1128 

Ray  V.  Northup,  55  Wis.  396,  177 

Ray  V.  Roe,  2  Blackf.(Ind.)  258,     500 
Rav  V.  Rowley,  1  Hun  614,  320 

Rav  V.  Tubbs,  50  Vt.  688,  365 

Raye,  Ex  parte,  63  Cal.  491,  184 

Raymond  v.  Bearnard,  12  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  274,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec. 
317,  402 

Raymond    v.    Butterworth,    139 

Mass.  471,  336 

Raymond  v.    Kresburg,   84  Wis. 

302,  S.  C.  19  L.  R.  A.  643,  1147 

Raymond  v.  Longworth,  14  How. 

76,  34 

Raymond   v.    Narragansett,  etc., 

Co.,  14  R.  I.  310,  473 

Raymond  v.  Simonson,  4  Blackf. 

85,  367 

Raymond  v.  Smith,  1  Metcf.(Ky.) 
65,  S.  C.  71  Am.  Dec.  458, 

181, 183,  191, 1203 
Rayne  v.  Taylor,10  La.  Ann.  726,  464 
Rayner  v.  Bryson,  29  Md.  473,  394 
Raynor  v.  Mintzer,  72  Cal.  585,  369 
Raynorv.Raynor,94N.Y.  248,  1134 
Rea  V.   Gibbons,   7   Serg.   &    R. 

(Pa.)  204,  595 

Read   v.    Buffum,  79   Cal.  77,  21 

Pac.  R.  555,  388 

Read    v.   Cambridge,   124   Mass. 

567,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  690,  1078 

Read  v.  City  of  Buffalo,  4  Abb. 

App.  Dec.  22,  217 

Read  v.  French,  28  N.  Y.  285,  320, 437 
Read  v.  Gooding,  20  Fla.  773,  1184 
Read  v.  Howe,  39  la.  553,  318 

Read  v.  Markle,  3  Johns.  523,  365 
Read  v.  Nichols,  118  N.  Y.  224,  S. 

C.  7  L.  R.  A.  130,  1079,  1080 

Reagan  v.  Mabry,  8  Baxt.  168,  802 
Reagan  v.  Sheets,  130  Ind.  185,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1065,  536 

Real  V.  Hollister,  17  Neb.  661,  1168 
Real  del  Monte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pond, 

etc.,  Co.,  23  Cal.  82,  488 

Real  Estate,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Collon- 

ious,  63  Mo.  290,  245 

Reams  v.  Kearns,  5Cold.  (Tenn.) 

217,  136,  161,  218,  224 

Reams  v.  McNail,  28  Tenn.  542,  146 
Re   Application   of   Pacific,   etc., 

Commission,  32  Fed.  241,  170 

Reardon  v.  Thompson,  149  Mass. 

267,  369 

Reaves  v.  Moody,  15  Rich.  L.  (S, 
Car.)  312,  1124 


TABLE    OK    CASKS. 


CCXIX 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Re  Christian  Jensen  Co.,  128  N. 

Y.  550,  4i»3 

Rebou's  Heirs  v.  Behrens,  5  La, 

79,  48G 

Re  Bullard's  Estate  (Cal.) ,  31  Pac. 

R.  1119,  1141,  1142 

Redd,  Ex  parte,  73  Ala.  548,  1241 

Redden   v.    Spraunce,   4    Harr. 

(Del.)  217,  738 

Redden  v.  Tefft,  48  Kan.  302,  S. 

C.  29  Pac.  R.  127,  1081 

Reddick    v.    Keesling,    129    Ind. 

128,  1147 

Reddick  v.  Smith,  3  Scam.  451,  197 
Reddin  v.  Gates,  52  la.  210,  816 

Reddington  v.  Hamilton,  8  Blackf . 

02,  149 

Re  Deaton,  105  N.  Car.  51),  S.  C. 

lis.  E.  R.  244,  1129 

Redgrave  v.  Jones,  1  Har.  &  M. 

195,  310 

Redhead  v.  Baker  (la.),  53  N.  W. 

R.  114,  1186 

Redigan  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  155 

Mass.   44,    S.    C.   28   N.   E.   R. 

1133,  369 

Redinbo  v.    Fretz,   99   Ind.   458, 

1098,  1210 
Redman  v.  Gulnac,  5  Cal.  148,  1077 
Redman   v.    Purrington,   65   Cal. 

271,  412 

Redman  v.  State,  28  Ind.  205,  174, 633 
Redmond   v.  Stepp,  100  N.   Car. 

212,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  727,  533 

Red  River  Bank  v.  Freeman,  1  N. 

Dak.  196,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  36, 

254,  1183 
Redwine  v.  State,  15  Ind.  293,  138 
Reed  v.  Armstrong.  IS  Ind,  446,  403 
Reetl  V.  Axtell,  84^'a.  231,  410 

Reed  v.  Baglev,  24  Neb.  332,  234 

Reed  v.  Bott,  100  Mo.  62,  S.  C.  12 

S.  W.  R.  347,  528 

Reed  v.  Bovd.  84  111.  66,  430 

Reed  v.  Carpenter,  2  Ohio  79,  1049 
Reed  v.  Currv.  35  111.  536,  1200 

Reed  v.  Eldredge,  27  Cal.  346,  1192 
Reed  v.  Gage,  33  Mich.  179,  •  31,  183 
Reed  v.   Hubbard,  1  G.   Greene 

153,  1235 

Reed    v.    Inhabitants,    8     Allen 

(Mass.)  522,  1052 

Reed  v.  Insurance  Co.,  138  Mass. 

572,  408 

Reed  v.  Marshall.  90  Pa.  St.  345,  375 
Reed  v.  Mavor.  92  Ala.  339.  S.  C. 

33  Am.  &Ens:.  Corp.  Cas.  469.     366 
Reed  v.  McConnell.  101  N.  Y.  270, 

S.  C.  4  N.  E.  Rep.  718,  738 

Reed  v.  :\riller,  1  Bibb.  142,  1167 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Reed  v.   Newcomb,  62  Vt.  75,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  367,  224 

Reed  v.  Proprietors,  8  How.  (U. 

S.)  274,  1193 

Reed  v.    Reed,   52  Mich.  117,  50 

Am.  R.  247,  287 

Reed  v.  Spaulding,  42  N.  H.  114,  806 
Reed  v.  Spavde,  56  Ind.  394,  1198 

Keed  v.  Spicer,  27  Cal.  57,  33 

Reed  v.  Stapp,  52  Fed.  R.  <>11,  1141 
Reed  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim.  App, 

35,  S.  C.  22  S.  W.  Rep.  22,  660 

Reed  v.  State,  11  Mo.  379,  636 

Reed  v.  State,  108  X.  Y.  407,  370 

Heed  V.  State  Bank,  5  Ark.  193,  1195 
Keed  v.  Thaver,  9  Ind.  157,  1121 

Reed  v.  Vaughan,  15  Mo.  137,  S. 

C.  55  Am.  Dec.  133,  128,  316 

Reed  v.  Worland,  64  Ind.  216,  1239 
Reeder  v.  Maranda,  m  Ind.  485,  491 
Ree.ler  v.  Sayre,  70  N.  Y.  180,  178 
Reeder  v.  Workman,   37  S.  Car. 

413,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  187, 

1137.  1138 
Reeks  v.  Robins,  Barnes  337,  430 

Reel  V.  Elder,  02  Pa.  St.  308,  289 

Rees  V.    Blackwell,    6   Ind.  App. 

506,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  988,  1080 

Rees  V. City  of  Watertown,19  Wall. 

107,  212 

Rees  V.  Rees,  7  Ore.  78,  456 

Reeves  v.  Corning,  51  Fed.  R.  774.  304 
Reeves  v.  Grottendick,  131   Ind. 

107,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  889,    527,  1104 
Reeves  v.  Harrington  (la.),  52  N. 

W.  R.  517,  1079 

Reeves  v.  Herr,  59  111.  81,  362 

Reeves  v.  Plough,  41  Ind.  204,  1165 
Reeves    v.    Poindexter,    8   Jones 

(Law.)  X.  C.  308.  919 

Reeves  v.  White.  17  Q.  B.  995,  337 
Reformed  Church  v.  Schoolcraft, 

65  X.  Y. 134,  371 

Reg.   V.   Aberdale   Canal  Co.,  14 

Ad.  c*c  El.  (N.  S.)  854,  209 

Reg.  V.  Bavnton,  17  How.  St.  Tr. 

5S9,  808 

Reg.  V.   Bolton,  1   Ad.  &  El.  (N. 

S.)  66,  262 

Reg.  V.  Cheverton,  2  Fost.  &  F. 

833,  30 

Reg.  V.  Dowling,  3  Cox  C.  C.  509,  662 
Reg.  V.  Geach,  9  Car.  &  P.  499,  659 
Reg.  V.  Hill,  5  Cox  Crim.  Cas.  259,  519 
Reg.  V.  Moore,  61  L.  J.  Mag.  Cas. 

80,  S.  C.  17  Cox's  C.  C.  458,  724 

Reg.  V.  Murphv,  8  Car.  <<c  P.  297,  695 
Reg.  V.  Tolson,  4  Fost.  &  F.  103,  30 

Reg.  V.  Wvcherley,  8  Carr.  &  P. 

262,         '  808 


ccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
■Rehm  v.  German   Ins.    Co.,    125  I 

Ind.  135,  S.  C.  -'5  N.  E.  R.  173,  441 
Reid  v.Citv  of  Atlanta,73  Ga.  523,  370 
Reid  V.  Hawkins,  40  Ind.  222,  718 
Reid  V.  Ladue,  (36  Mich.  22,  S.  C. 

11  Am.  St.  K.  402,  738 

Reid  V.  Morton,  119  111.  118,  S.  C. 

6  N.  E.  R.  424,  187 

Reid  V.  Reid,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  101,  803 
Reid  V.  Spoon,  66  N.  Car.  415,  318 
Reid  V.  State,  53  Ala.  402,  S.  C. 

25  Am.  R.  627,  1111 
Reichert  v.  Voss,  78  Ga.  64,  343 
Reidelsheimer  v.  Miller,  107  Ind. 

485,  1097 

Reifsnider  v.  Am.  Imp.  Pub.  Co., 

45  Fed.  R.  433,  608 

Reilly  v.  Bader,  46  Minn.  212,  S. 

C.  48N.  \V.  R.909,  1110 

Reilly  v.  Chouquette,  18  Mo.  220,  361 
Reilly  v.  Dodge,  131  N.  Y.  153,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1011,  553 

Reillv  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

94  Mo.  600,  S.C.  7  S.W.R.  407,  548 
Reilly  v.  Lee,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  313,  507 
Reinders  v.  Koppelman,  94  Mo. 

344,  291 

Reinhart  v.  Lugo,  86  Cal.  395,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  1089,  S.C.  21  Am. 

St.  R.  52,  435,  455,  456 

Reinsv.  People,  30 111.  256,  1123,1224 
Reissner  v.  Oxley,  80  Ind.  580,  537 
Reist  V.  Hellbrenner,  11  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  131,  173 

Reiter  v.  Fruh,   150  Pa.  St.  623, 

S.  C.  24  Ail.  R.  347,  1208 

Reitz  V.  State,  33  Ind.  187,  633 

Reizenstein  v.  Marquardt,  75  la. 

294,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  477,  360 

Re  Jessup's  Estate,  81  Cal.  408, 

S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  594,  816 

Relvea  v.  Ramsay,  2  Wend.  (N. 

Y".)  602,  586 

Rembaugh  v.  Phipps,  75  Mo.  422,  1113 
Remington   v.    Harrison   Co.,  12 

Bush.  (Ky.)  148,  581 

Remington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cole,  62 

Cal.  311,  629 

Remlinger  V.Young,  22  Wis.  426,  1043 
Remv  V.  Municipality,  12  La. Ann. 

.500,  814 

Remv  V.  Olds,  88  Cal.  537,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  355,  397 
Renier  v.  Ilurlbut,  81  Wis.  24,  S. 

C.  14  L.  R.  Anno.  562,  S.  C.  29 
Am.  St.  R.  8.50,  320,  428 

Rennick  v.  Chandler,  59  Ind.  354, 

375,  1143 

Renninger  v.  Spatz,  128  Pa.  St. 
524,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  405,  540 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Repath  v.  Walker,  13  Col.  109,      1158 
Replow  V.  Hodges,  3  H.  L.  Cases 

79,  998 

Repp  V.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App.  167, 

S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  441,      206,  564,  565 
Republic   Iron   Co.   v.  Jones,  37 

Fed.  R.  721,  409 

Republic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swigert,  135 

111.  150,  S.  C.  12  L.  R.  A.  328,      494 
Requa  V.  City,  45  N.  Y.  129,  411 

Re  Sanderson,  74  Cal.  199,  1129 

Re  Sloan  (N.  M.), 25  Pac.  R.930,  478 
Respublica  v.  Lacaze,  2  Ball.  118,  1169 
Respublica  v.  Richards,  1  Yeates 

(Pa.)  480,  654 

Retzer  v.  Wood,  109  U.  S.  185,  1051 
Reubel  v.  Preston,  5  East  291,  432 
Revel  V.  State,  26  G a.  275,  138 

Revell  V.  Hussey,  2  Ball  &  Batty 

286,  50 

Re  Vinich,  86  Cal.  70,  S.  C.  26  Pac. 

R.  528,  458 

Re  Whitson's  Estate,  89  Mo.  58,  639 
Rex  V.  Allen,  1  Moody  C.  C.  494, 

307 
Rex  V.  Allen,  7  Car.  &  P.  664,  307 
Rex  V.   Bishop,  2  London  Legal 

Observer  39,  851 

Rex  V.  Blandy,  18  St.  Tr.  1117,  851 
Rex  V.  Brook,  31  St.  Tr.  1137,  30 

Rex  V.  Brown,  10  Cox  C.  C.  453,  803 
Rex  V.  Burke,  Celebrated  Trials, 

42  851 

Rex'v.  Carlile,  4  C.  &  P.  415,  235 

Rex  V.  Chapman,  3  Anst.  811,  1194 
Rex  V.  Clews,  4  Carr.  &  P.  221,  30 
Rex  V.  Cook,  13  How.  St.  Tr.  348,  179 
Rex  V.  Cumberland,  6  Term  Rep. 

194,  627 

Rex  V.  D'Eon,  3  Burr.  1513,  621 

Rexv.Despard,2Man.&Ry.406,  664 
Rex  V.  Edmonds,  4  Barn.  &  Aid. 

471,  667 

Rex  V.  Gisburn,  15  East  57,  505 

Rex  V.  Hanes,  3  P.  &  F.  144,  31 

Rex  V.  Harrison,  12  St.  Tr.  834, 

30, 851 
Rex  V.  Hucks,  1  Stark  N.  P.  424,  538 
Rex  V.  Huggins,  2  Ld.  Raymond, 

1574,  1103 

Rex  V.  Hunt,  3  B.  &  Aid.  566,  504 

Rex  V.  Johnson,  7  East  65,  504 

Rex  V.  Justices,  3  Burr.  1456,  338 

Rex  V.  King,  2  Chit.  217,  627 

Rex  V.  Mavor  of  London,  9  B.  & 

C.  1,        "  337 

Rex  V.  Parker,  3  Doug.  242,  806 

Rex  V.  Parkin,  1  Moodv  45,  1111 

Rex  V.  Robinson,  2  Burr.  799,  258 
Rex  V.  AVilkes,  4  Burr.  2527,  176 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXl 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Bex  V.  Worsenluim,  1  Ld.  Uuyni. 

705,  809 

Rex  V.  Young,  1  Burr.  556,  176 

Rex  V.  Young,  2  Anst.  448,  1194 

Rexioth  V.  Coon,  lo  R.  I.  35,  S. 

C.  2  Am.  .St.  R.  803,  1149 

Reyburn  v.  Bnickett,  2  Kan.  227, 

S.  C.  83  Am.  Dec.  457,  466 

Reyder's  Estate,  In  re,  38  N.  Y. 

St.  R.  29,  S.  C.  59  Hun  618,  110 

Reynes  v.  Dumont,  130  U.  S.  354, 

268,  1130 
Reynolds  v.  Baldwin,  93  Ind.  57,  675 
Reynolds  v.  Collins,  78  Ala.  94,  474 
Reynolds  v.  Crawfordsville,  etc.. 

Bank,  112  U.  S.  405,  270,  1228 

Reynolds  v.  Deitz  (Neb.),  58  N. 

W.  "R.  89,  1227 

Reynolds  v.  Fleming,  30  Kan.  106, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  R.  86,  606 

Reynolds  v.  Hennessey,  17  R.  I. 

169,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  639,  350 

Reynolds  v.  Howe,  51  Conn.  472,    294 
Reynolds  v.  Lounsbury,   6    Hill 

(N.  Y.)  534,  516 

Reynolds  v.  Milk  Grove,  etc.,  134 

111.  268,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  516,  484 
Reynolds  y.  Pettyjohn,79  Va.  327,  409 
Reynolds  V.  Plummer,  19  Me.  22,  1047 
Reynolds  v.  Ricbards,  14  Pa.  St. 

205  539 

Reynolds  v.  Robuck,  37  Ala.  408,     601 
Reynolds   v.    Schaffer,   91   Micb. 

494,  519 

Reynolds    v.    Schmidt,   20    Wis. 

374,  314 

Reyriblds  v.  Stansberry,  20  Ohio 

344,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  459,  316 

Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  43  N.  J.  Eq. 

211,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  305, 

194,  341,  342,  1185 
Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  140  U.  S. 

254,  246 

Reynolds  v.  Summer,  126  111.  58, 

S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A.  327,  S.  C.  9  Am. 

St.  R.  523,  372,  376 

Reynolds  v.  Tompkins,  23  W.  Va. 

229,  1124 

Reynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U. 

S.  145,  542,  659 

Rhea's  Succession,  31   La.  Ann. 

323,  218 

Rhea  v.  Riner,  21  111.  526,  '  560 

Rheem  v.  Allison,  2  Serg.  &   R. 

(Pa.)  113,  601 

Rhetty.  Poe,  2  How.  (U.S.)  457,    1067 
Rhine  v.  Morris,  95  Ind.  81,  1232 

Rhines  y.  Baird,  41  Pa.  St.  256,       548 
Rbines  y.  Phelps,  3  Gilm.  (111.) 

455,  196 


.  J -002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Rboades  y.  Delaney,  50  Ind.  468, 

604, 1197 
Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12 

Peters  (U.  S.)  755,  614 

Rhode  Islaiul  v.  Massachusetts,  12 

Peters  657,  115,  241 

Rhodes  y.  Andrews  (Ark.),  13  S. 

\V.  R.  422,  399 

Rhodes  v.  Cousins,  6  Rand.  (Va.) 

188,  S.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  715,  476 

Rhodes  V.  Dunbar,  57  Pa.  St.  274,  487 
Rhodes  y.  Morgan, 1  Baxt.(Tenn.) 

360,  393 

Rhodes  v.  Russell,  32  S.  Car.  585, 

S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  828,  201,  332 

Rhodes  v.  Smethurst,  4  M.  &  W. 

42,  360 

Rhodes  v.  State,  128  Ind.   189,  S. 

C.  27  N.  E.  R.  866. 

653,  667,  668,  794 
Rhorerv.  Brockhage,  15  Mo.  App. 

16,  1156 

Ricard  v.  Smith,  37  Miss.  644,  298 

Rice  V.  American  National  Bank 

(Col.),  31  Pac.  R.  1024,  433 

Rice  y.  Austin,  19  Minn.  103,  170,  251 
Rice  y.  Brown,  81  Me.  56,  S.  C.  16 

Atl.  334,  313,  557 

Rice  V.  City,  108  Ind.  7, 

1097,  1101,  1107 
Rice  V.  Derby,  7  Ind.  649,  514 

Rice  V.  Manford,  110  Ind.  596,  1096 
Rice  V.  Melendy,  36  la.  166,  619 

Rice  y.  Pertuis,"  40  Ark.  157,  465 

Rice  y.  Rice,  6  Ind.  100,  1088 

Rice  V.  Simpson,  9  Heisk.  809,  413 
Rice  V.  State,  3  Kan.  141,  213 

Rice  V.  Wright,  46  Miss.  679,  338 

Rich  y.  City  of  Chicago.   59   111. 

286,  ^  1129 

Richards  v.  Bestor,90  Ala.  352,  S. 

C.  8  So.  R.  30,  1206 

Richards  y.  Borowski  (Neb.),  58 

N.  W.  R.  277,  1081 

Richards  v.  Collins,  45  N.  J.  Eq. 

283,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  726,        290 
Richards  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R. 

R.,  18  la.  259,  619 

Ricbards  v.  Dyke.  3  Q.  B.  256,  337 
Richards  y.  (ireeno,  78  111.  525,  632 
Richards  y.  Holt,  61  la.  529,  584 

Richards  v.  Nixon,  20  Pa.  St.  19, 

620,  678 
Richards  v.  State,  82  Wis.  172,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  R.  6.52,  809 

Richards  v.  State,  91  Tenn.  723,  S. 

C.  30  Am.  St.  R.  907,  696 

Ricbards  v.  Tabb,  4  Cal.  522,  1113 
Ricbarilson,  Ex  parte  (Ala.),  11 

So.  R.  316,  177 


CCXXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Richardson    v.    Beldam,   18  111. 

App.  527,  139 

Richardson  v.  Bricker,  7  Col.  58,  383 
Richardson  v.  Coleman,  131  Ind. 

210  1120 

Richardson   v.  Green,   130  U.  S. 

104,  189 

Richardson  v.  Gregory,  126  111. 

166,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  777,  376 

Richardson  v.  Huggins,  23  N.  H. 

106,  594,  596 

Richardson  v.  Kelly,  85  111.  491,  800 
Richardson  v.  Learned,  10  Pick. 

261,  ^        395 

Richardson  v.  Lenhard,  48  Kan. 

629,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  1076,  566 

Richardson    v.    Lumber    Co.,  40 

Mich.  203,  34 

Richardson  v.  Milburn,    17  Md. 

67,  502 

Richardson  v.  Payne,  55  Ga.l67,  600 
Richardson  v.  Rogers,  37  Minn. 

461,  S.  C.  35  N.  W.  R.  270, 

1191,  1203 
Richardson  v.  Snider,  72   Ind. 

425,  409 

Richardson  v.   St.  Joseph,   etc., 

Co.,  5  Blackf.  146,  1207 

Richardson  v.Ward,6  Madd.266,  497 
Richardson  v.   Weare,  62  N.  H. 

80,  1095 

Richardson    v.    White,    19   Ark. 

241,  472 

Richardson  v.  Wilkins,  19  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  510,  790 

Richmond  v.  Brookings,  48  Fed. 

R.  241,  456 

Richmond  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  87  Mich.  374,  S.  C.  49  N. 

W.  R.  621,  550 

Richmond  v.  Davis,  103  Ind.  449,  163 
Richmond  v.  Kicken,  25  Vt.  326,  21 
Richmond  v.  Poe,  24  Gratt.  149,  366 
Richmond  v.  Richmond,  10  Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  343,  794 

Richmond  v.  State,  16  Neb.  388,  626 
Richmond  v.    Sundberg,    77    la. 

255,  801 

Richmond  v.  Wardlaw,   36  Mo. 

313,  1162 

Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
son, 86  Ga.  203,  S.  C.  12  S.  E. 

R.  357,  434 

Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Childress,  82  Ga.719,  S.  C.  3  L. 
R.  A.  808,  810 

Richmond  &  D.R.R.  Co.  v.  Jones, 

92  Ala.  218,  S.  C.  9  So.  R.  276,      712 
Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  His- 
song  (Ala.),  13  So.  R.  209,  783 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Richmond  &  D.  Railroad  Co.  v. 

Powers,  149  U.  S.  43,  S.  C.  13 

Sup.  Ct.  748,  1056 

Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rudd, 

88  Va.  648,  S.  C.   14  S.  E.  R. 

361,  460 

Richwine  v.  Presbyterian  Church, 

135 Ind.  — ,  S.  C.  34  N.  E.  R.  737, 

479,  1176 
Rickabus  v.  Gott,  51  Mich.  227,  1158 
Rickards  v.  Ladd,  4  Pac.  C.  L.  J. 

52,  435 

Rick'etson  v.Compton,  23  Cal.637,  605 
Ricketson  v.  Richardson,  26  Cal. 

149,  298 

Ricketts  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  33  W.  Va.  433,  S.  C.  7 

L.  R.  A.  354,  822 

Rickey  v.  Ford,  2  Ore.  251,  1134 

Rico  V.  Ganltier,  3  Atk.  501,  477 

Riddle  v.  Core,  21  W.  Va.  530,  1025 
Riddle  v.  Kreinbiehl,  12  La.  Ann. 

297  375 

Riddle  v.Varnum,  20  Pick.  (Mass.) 

280,  560 

Riddle  v.Whitehill,  135  U.  S.  621, 

S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  924,  372 

Riddlesbarger  v. Hartford  Ins. Co., 

7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  386,  385 

Ridenhour  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 

Co.,  102  Mo.  270,  S.  C.  14  S.  W. 

R.  760,  152, 1213 

Ridenour  v.  Miller,  83  Ind.  208,  1155 
Rider  v.  Baglev,  84  N.  Y.  461,  495 
Rider  v.  People,  110  111.  11,  1074 

Ridgeway  v.  Dearinger,  42   Ind. 

157,  1096 

Ridgway's  Appeal,  15  Pa.  St.  177f 

S.  C.  53  Am.  Dec.  586,  1190 

Rigby  V.  Lefevre,  58  Miss.  639,  327 
Rigby  V.  Norwood,  34  Ala.  129,  1054 
Rigden  v.   Martin,  6   Har.  &   J. 

(Md.)  403,  594 

Rigdon  V.  Conley,  141  111.  564,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  1060,  782 

Rigg  V.  Bias,  44  Kan.  148,  S.  C.  24 

Pac   R   26  1117 

Rigg  V.  Cook,  4  Gilm.  336,  S.  C.  46 

Am.  Dec.  462,  1116,  1120 

Riggenberg     v.     Hartman,     102 

Ind.  537,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  91, 

174,  628 
Rlggs  V.  Am.  Tract  Soc,  84  N.  Y. 

330  599 

Riggs  V.  Collins,  2  Biss.  268,  327 

Riggs  V.  Commercial,   etc.,   Ins. 

Co.,  125  N.  Y.  7,  S.  C.  21  Am. 
St.  R.  716,  207 

Riorgs  V.  Fenton,  3  Mo.  28,  618 

Riggs  V.  Fuller,  54  Ala.  141,  371 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXIU 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Riggs  V.  Johnson  County,  6  Wall. 

166,  241,  258 

Riggs  V.  Sterling,  60  Mich.  043,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  K.  554,  697 

Riggsbee  v.  Bowler,  17  Ind.  167,  432 
Rigler  v.  Morgan,  77  N.  Y.  318,  405 
Riguey  v.  Coles,  6  Bosw.  (N.  Y. 

Supr.)  470,  154 

Rigney  v.  Kigney,  127  N.  Y.  408, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  462,  459 

Riley  v.  Black,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  695, 

644 
Riley  v.  Dickens,  1!)  111.  29,  538 

Riley  v.   McNamara,  83  Tex.  11, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  Rep.  141,  402 

Riley  v.  Melquist,  23  Neb.  474,  S. 

C.  36  N.  W.  Rep.  657,  540 

Riley  v.  Nichols,  1  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

16,  447 

Riley  v.  Riley,  36  Ala.  496,  537 

Riley  v.  State,  88  Ala.  193,   S.  C. 

7  So.  R.  149,  179,  791 

Riley  v.  Waugh,  8  Cush.  220,  327, 427 
Rine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  100 Mo. 

228,  1027 

Rines  v.  Boyd,  7  Wis.  155,  636 

Ringgenberg  v.  Hartman,102Ind. 

537,  634 

Ringham  v.  Walk,  128  Ind.  164,  1206 
Ringle  v.  Weston,  23  Ind.  588,  183 
Ringo  V.  Brooks,  26  Ark.  540, 

383,  384 
Ripley  v.  yEtna  Ins.  Co.,  30  N. 

Y.  136,  557 

Rippen  v.  Schoen  92  111.  229,  473 

Rippey  v.  State,  29  Tex.  App.  37, 

S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  448,  1206 

Risewick  v.  Davis,  19  Md.  82,  297 

Risher  v.  Morgan,  56  Ind.  172, 

637,  1197 
Risher  v.  Thomas,  2  Mo.  98,  173 

Rislev  V.  Welles,  5  Conn.  431,  472 
Risser  v.  Martin  (la.),  53  N.  W. 

R.  270,  1201 

Ritchie  v.  Davis,  11  la.  124,  544 

Ritchie  v.  Holbrooke,  7  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  458,  1124 

Ritten  v.  Griffith,  16  Hun  454,  447 
Rittenhouse  v.  Knoop  (Ind.),  36 

N.  E.  R.  384,  1096 

Ritter  v.  Offutt,  40  Md.  207,  431 

Riverside  Co.  v.  Townsheud,  120 

111.  9,  371 

Rives  V.  Petit,  4  Ark.  582,  214 

Rixford  v.  Nve,  20  Vt.  132,  594 

Rizzolo  V.  Com.,  126  Pa!  St.  54,  632 
Roach  V.  Blakelv  (Va.).  17  S.  E. 

R.  228,  ■  644 

Roach  V.  Hulings,  16  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

319,  1067 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Road  in  Hatfield  Tp.,  4   Yeates, 

392,  338 

Road  in  McCandless  Tp.,  In  re, 

110  Pa.  St.  605,  S.  C.  1  Atl.  Rep. 

594,  6.33 

Robb   V.  Brachman,  38  Ohio  St. 

423,  590 

Robb  V.  Hackley,  23  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  50,  806 

Robb  V.  Irwin,  15  Ohio  689,  294,  443 
Robb  V.  Starkey,  2  Car.  &  K.  143,  507 
Robbinsv.  Alton,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Mo. 

380,  1159 

Robbins  v.  Burn,  54  111.  48,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  R.  75,  108 

Robbins  v.  Clark,  129  Mass.  145,  584 
Robbinsv.  Clemmens,  41  Ohio  St. 

285,  456 

Robbins  v.  Killebrew,  95  N.  Car. 

19,  593,  596 

Robbins  v.  Otis,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 

368,  382 

Robbins  v.  Robbins,  2  Ind.  74,  443 
Robbins  v.  Spencer,  121  Ind.  594, 

S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  660,  537,  677,  805 
Robbins  v.Wolcott,19  Conn.  356,  1171 
Roberson  v.  State.  87  Ga.  209,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  696,  1168 

Robert  E.  Lee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Engle- 

bach,  18  Col.  106,  S.  C.  31  Pac. 

R.  771,  1162 

Roberts,  Ex  parte,  9  Nev.  44,  142,  155 
Roberts  v.  Barry,  42  Miss.  260.  472 
Roberts  v.  Bonaparte,  73  Md.  191, 

S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  689,  539,  559 

Roberts  v.  Burrell,  3  T.  &  C.  (N. 

Y.)  30,  181 

Roberts  v.  Caldwell,  5  Dana  512,  266 
Roberts  v.  Corby,  86  111.  182,  1200 
Roberts  v.  Dame,  11  N.  H.  226,  1172 
Roberts  v.  Dixon.  50  Kan.  436,  S. 

C.  31  Pac.  R.  1083,  506 

Roberts  v.  Failis,  1  Cowen  (N.  Y.) 

238,  1120 

Roberts  v.  Flannagan,  21  Neb.  503, 

S.  C.  32  N.  W.  R.  563,  263 

Roberts  v.  Higgins,  5  Ind.  542,  1078 
Roberts  v.  Hughes,  7  M.  t<:   W. 

399,  1124 

Roberts    v.    Johnson,  37    N.   Y. 

Super.  157,  721 

Roberts  v.  Landecker,  9  Cal.  262,  472 
Roberts  v.  Mazeppa  Mill  Co.,  30 

Minn.  413,  .555 

Roberts  v.  Lindlev.  121  Ind.  56,  1149 
Roberts  v.  Norris.  67  Ind.  386,  393 
Roberts  v.  Parrish,  17  Ore.  583,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  136.  1231 

Roberts  v.  People  (Cal.),  13  Pac. 

R.  630,  632,  034 


ccxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Roberts  v.  People,  9  Col.  458,  632 

Koberts  v.  Ki.ldle,  79  Pa.  St.  468,  363 
Roberts  v.  Koberts,  85  N.  Car.  9,  788 
Roberts  v.  Smith.  34  Ind.  550,  1158 
Roberts  v.  State,  27  Fla.  244,  S.  C. 

9  So.  K.  246,  230 

Roberts  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  47,  1181 
Roberts  v.  Treadwell,  50  Cal.  520,  529 
Roberts  v.  Watkius,  14  C.  B.  N. 

S.  592,  406 

Robertson  v.  Beall,  10  Md.  125,  197 
Robertson  v.  Davidson,  14  Minn. 

.>54,  492 

Robertson  v.  Garshwiler,  81  Ind. 

463,  1167 

Robertson  v.  McNeil,  12  Wend. 

(N.Y.)578,  585,599 

Robertson  v  Morgan,  38  111.  App. 

137,  1168 

Robertson  v.  Oelschlaeger,  137  U. 

S.  436,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  148,  542 
Robertson  v.  Perkins,  129  U.  S. 

233,    S.    C.   9   Sup.  Ct.  R.  279, 

1052,  1207 
Robertson  v.  Pickrell,  109  U.  S. 

608,  263 

Robertson  v.  Smith,  129  Ind.  422,  346 
Robertson  v.  Smith,  104  Ind.  79,  332 
Robertson  v.  Solomon,  144  U.  S. 

603,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  752,  542 
Robertson  v.  State,  109  Ind.  79,  249 
Robertson  v.  Winchester,  85Tenn. 

171,  S.  C.  1  S.  W.  R.  781,  430,  451 
Robidoux  V.  Cassilegi,  10  Mo.  App. 

516,  551 

Robin  V.  State,  40  Ala.  72,  1225 

Robinius  v.  Lister,  30  Ind.  142,  514 
Robinson,  Ex  parte,  19  Wall.  505, 

136,  424 
Robinson's  Estate,  6  Mich.  137,  456 
Robinson  v.  Abell,  17  Ohio  36,  1043 
Robinson  v.  Anderson,  106  Ind. 

152,  1237 

Robinson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  66 

Pa.  St.  160,  196 

Robinson  v.  Benson,  19  Nev.  331,  1163 
Robinson  v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat. 

323,  1128 

Robinson   v.    Commissioners,    12 

M<1.  132,  185 

Robinson  v.  Cook,  6  Taunt.  336,  400 
Robinson  v.  County  Court,  32  Mo. 

428,  1188 

,  Robinson  v.  Dauchy,  3  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  20,  545 

Robinsonv.  Ensign,  6  Gray  300,  198 
Robinson  v.  Epping,  24  Fla.  237, 

S.  C.  4  So.  R.  812,  262 

RoVjinson  v.  Ferguson,  78  111.  538, 

142,  155 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 

Robinson  v.  Ferry,  11  Conn.  460, 

524,  715 
Robinson  v.  George's  Ins.  Co.,  17 

Me.  131,  S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec.  239,  588 
Robinson  v.  Hitchcock,  8  Mete. 

(Mass.)  ()4,  676 

Robinson  v.  Howard,  5  Cal.  428,  - 

1178 
Robinson  v.  Keith,  25  Iowa  321,  111 
Robinson    v.    Keys,    9    Humph. 

(Tenn.)   143,  1198 

Robinson  v.  Lake,  14  la.  421,     370,  371 
Robinson  v.  Levi,  81  Ala.   134,  S, 

C.  1  So.  R.  554,  1063 

Robinson  v.  Louisville   &,  N.  R. 

R.  Co.,  2  Lea  (Tenn.)  594,  1041 

Robinson  v.  Martel,  11  Tex.  149,     622 
Robinsonv. Merchants',  etc.,  Co., 

16  R.  I.  217,  S.  C.  14  Atl.  R. 

860,  1048 

Robinson  v.  Moore,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  93,  S.  C.  20  S.W.  R.  994,  1093 
Robinson  v.  Morse,  26  Vt.  392,  597 
Robinson  v.  Murphy,  69  Ala.  543,  564 
Robinson    v.    National    Bank   of 

Newberne,  81  N.  Y.  385,  272 

Robinson  v.  Oceanic,  etc.,  Co.,  112 

N. Y.  315,  332 

Robinson  Notion  Co.  v.  Ormsby, 

33  Neb.  655,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R. 

952,  465 

Robinson  v.  Peru,  etc., Co.,  1  Okla. 

140,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  988,  790 

Robinson  v.  Randall,  82  111.  521, 

658,  666 
Robinson  v.  Redman,  2  Duv.  (Ky.) 

82,  342 

Robinson  v.  Robinson  (N.  H.),  23 

Atl.  R.  362,  S.  C.   15  L.  R.  A. 

121,  534 

Robinson  v.  Rudkins,  28  Fed.  R. 

8,  1202 

Robinson  v.   Satterlee,   3   Sawy. 

134,  1210 

Robinson  V.  Shanks,  118  Ind.  125,     601 
Robinson  v.  Shatzley,  75  Ind.  461, 

261,  394 
Robinson  v.  Snvder,  74  Ind.  110,  1151 
Robinson  v.  State,  16  Fla.  835,  805 
Robinson  v.  Suter.  15  Mo.  App. 

599,  '  1233 

Robinson  v.  Walton,  58  Mo.  380,     531 
Robinson  v.  Ward,  8  .Tohns.  (N. 

Y.)  86,  S.  C.  5  Am.  Dec.  327,  463 
Robinson  v.  Weeks,  56  Me.  102,  47 
Robinson  v.  White,  42  Me.  209,  533 
Robinson   v.   Willoughby,  67   N. 

(Jar.  84,  1208 

Robinson,  etc.,  Works  v.  Chand- 
ler, 56  Ind.  575,  1160 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CCXXV 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Kobles  V.  State,  5  Tex.  App.  346,     646 
Roblinv.Yaggy,35Ill.  App.  537,    1243 
Robostelli  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

34  Fed.  R.  719,  1189 

Robostelli  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

34  Fed.  R.  507,  1193 

Robson  V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Co., 

4o  Fed.  R.  3()4,  570 

Roby  V.  Lubazan,21  Ala.  60,  S,  C. 

56  Am.  Dec.  237,  467 

Rochat  V.   North    Hudson,   etc., 

Co.,  49  N.  J.  L.  445,  S.  C.  9  Atl. 

R.  688,  S.  C.  10  Atl.  R.  710, 

1045,  1052 
Rochester  v.  Whitehouse,  15  N. 

H.  468,  573 

Rock  Creek  v.  Strong,  96  U.  S.  271,  134 
Rockford  R.  R.  v.  Hillmer,  72  111. 

235,  919 

Rockland  Water  Co.  v.  Pillsbery, 

60  Me.  425,  190,  1244 

Rockwell  V.  Jones,  21  111.  279,  341 
Rockwell  V.  Nearing,  35  N.Y^  302,  276 
Rockwell  V.  Servant,  54  111.  251,  376 
Rockwood  V.  Davenport,  37  Minn. 

533,  183 

Roddam  v.  Hetherington,  5  Yes. 

91,  477 

Roden   v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

133  111.  72,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R. 

585,  1051 

Roderigas  v.  East  River,  etc..  In- 
stitution, 76  N.  Y.  316,  S.  C.  32 

Am.  R.  309,  324,1189 

Roderigas  v.  East  River,  etc.,  Co., 

63  N.  Y.  460;  S.  C.  20  Am.   R. 

555,  134,  165,  166 

Roderiquez  v.  State  (Tex.),  22,  S. 

W.  R.  978,  809 

Rodgers  v.  Bonner,  45  N.  Y.  379,  468 
Rodgers  v.  State,  50  Ala.  102,  163 

Rodman    v.    Hedden,    10   Wend. 

498,  363 

Rodman  v.  Harcourt,  4  B.  Mon. 

224,  216 

Rodman  v.  Kelly,  13  Ind.  377,  508 
Rodman  v.  Musselman,  12  Bush 

(Ky.)  354,  S.  C.  23  Am.  R.  724,     472 
Rodman  v.  Reynolds, 114  Ind.  148, 

S,  C.  16  N.  E.  R.  516,  965,  1162 

Rodman  v.  Rodman,  54  Ind.  444,  163 
Rodriguez  v.  Ilavnes,  76  Tex.  225, 

S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  296,  1133 

Roe  V.  Chitwood,  3i\  Ark.  210,  539 
Roe  V.  Taylor.  45  111.  485.  537 

Roeder  V.  Studt,  12  Mo.  App.  566,  823 
Roehlv.  IIaumesser,114Ind.311,  504 
Rogers  v.  Abbott,  37  Ind.  138,  190 
Rogers    v.    Beard,    20    How    Pr. 

282,  1146 

0 


.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Rogers  v.  Beauchamp,   102   Ind. 

33,  230 

Rogers  v.  Burns,  27  Pa.  St.  525,  315 
Rogers  v.  Carrothers,  26  W.  Va. 

238,  596 

Rogers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

117  111.  115,  526 

Rogers  v.  Colt,  21  N.  J.  L.  704,  536 
Rogers  v.  Diamond,  13  Ark.  474,  679 
Rogers  v.  Felker,  77  Ua.  46,  218 

Rogers  v.  Cioodwin,  2  Mass.  475,  202 
Rogers  v.  Hoenig,    46    Wis.  361, 

1161,  1106 
Rogers  v.  Holden,  13  111.  293,  597 

Rogers   v.  Jenkins,    1  Bos.  &  P. 

383,  430 

Rogers  v.  Lamb,  3  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

155,  653 

Rogers  v.  Leyden,  127  Ind.  50,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  210,  525, 1064,  1097 
Rogers  v.  Loop,  51  Iowa  41,  146,  164 
Rogers  v.  Marshal,  1  Wall.  644,  1224 
Rogers  v.  Moore,  10  Conn.  13,  807 
Rogers  v.  Morton,  51  Iowa  709,  182 
Rogers  v.  Murray,  3  Bosw.  357,  1160 
Rogers  v.    New   York,  etc.,  Co., 

134  N.  Y'.  197,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

27,  1208 

Rogers  v.  Roberts,  88  Ga.  150,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  962,  1243 

Rogers  v.   Rogers,  18  N.  J.   Eq. 

445,  453 

Rogers  v.  Rogers,  14  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  131,  667 

Rogers  v.  Rogers,  78  Ga.  688,  S. 

C.  3  S.  E.  R.  451,  1157 

Rogers   v.  Russell,   11  Neb.   361, 

S.  C.  9  N.  AY.  R.  547,  1180 

Rogers  v.  Sample,  28  Neb.  141,  S. 

C.  44  N.  W.  R.  86,  1116,  1117 

Rogers  v.  Smith,  17  Ind.  323,  1211 
Rogers  v.  Stevens,  8  Ind.  464,  638 

Rogers  v.  Tatum,  25  N.  J.  L.  281,  594 
Rogers  v.  Van  Hoesen,  12  Johns. 

(N.  Y^)221.  506 

Rogers  v.  Vosburgh,  87  N.  Y''.  228, 

532 
Rogers  v.  Walker,  6  Pa.  St.  371,  289 
Roggencamp  v.   Dobbs,  15   Neb. 

620,  1163 

Rohn  v.  Harris.  31  111.  Apj).  26, 

S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  587,  332 

Rohr  v.  Davis,  9  Leigh  (Va.)  30,  1034 
Rohrback  v.  Germania  Fire  Ins. 

Co.,  62  N.  Y.  47,  49 

Rolfe  V.  Rich   (111.),  35  N.  E.  R. 

352,  1065 

Rolfe  V.  Rumford,  66  Me.  564,  820 
Roll  V.  Rea,  50  N.  J.  L.  264,  S.  C. 

12  Atl.  R.  905,  560 


CCXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


720 
804 

404 


[Beferences  are  to  Facfes,  Vol.  I,  pp 

Roller  V.  Roller,  8  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 

•>Q7  636 

Roller  V.  Wooldridge,  46  Tex.  485,  565 
Rollins  Stock  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 

Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  450,  529 

Rollins  V.  Ames,  9  Am.  Dec.  79,  665 
Rollins  V.  Co22shall,  29  la.  510,  1198 
Rollins  V.  HeWv,  84  N.  Car.  569,  314 
Rollins  V.  Henry,  78  N.  Car.  342,  183 
Rollins  V.  ^'olting,  53  Minn.  , 

S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  1118,  1124 

Rollins  V.  Taber,  25  Me.  144,  520 

Rollins  v.Townsend,118  Mass. 224,  586 
Roloson  V.  Carson,  8  Md.  208,  593 
Rolseth  V.  Smith,  38  Minn.  14,  S. 

C.  35  N.  W.  R.  565,  529 

Rome  Exchange  Bank  v.  Eames, 

1  Keves  (N.  Y.)  588,  71 

RonanV.  Meyer,  84  Ind.  390,  1098 
Rooby  V.  State,  4  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

Ill,  668 

Rooke's  Case,  5  Coke  R.  100a,  176 
Rooney  v.  Grant,  40  Ga.  191,  1165 
Roonev  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

Wis.' 397, 
Root  V.  Hamilton,  105  Mass.  22, 
Root  V.  Johnson  (Ala.),  10  So.  R. 

293, 
Root  V.  Sherwood,  6  Johns.  N.  Y. 

68,  nil 

Roots  V.  Beck,  109  Tnd.  472,  371 

Ropps  V.  Barker,  4  Pick.  239,  1122 
Roquest  v.  Boutin,  14  La.  Ann.  44,  721 
Request  v.  Steamer,  13  La.  Ann. 

210,  472 

Rose   V.  Brown,  Kirby    (Conn.) 

293,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  22,  401,  402 
Rose  V.  Brown,  11  AV.  Va.  122,  176 
Rose  V.  Duncan,  49  Tnd.  269,  400 

Rose  V.  Duncan,  43  Ind.  512,  1151 
Rose  V.  First  Nat.  Bank,  91  Mo. 

399,  S.  C.  60  Am.  R.  258,  782 

Rose  V.  Gibson,  71  Ala.  35,  1188 

Rose  V.  Railroad  Co.,  47  la.  420,  434 
Rose  V.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  17 

Nev.  25,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1105,  609 
Rose  V.  State,  2  Wash.  310,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  264,  660 

Rose  V.  Whaley,  14  La.  Ann.  374,  473 
Rosenbaum  v.  Bauer,  7  Sup.  Ct. 

R. 633,  243 

Rosenberg  v.  H.  B.  Claflin  Co., 

lOSo.  R.  521,  608,611 

Rosenblat  v.  Perkins,  18  Ore.  156, 

S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  598,  411 

Roseboom  v.  Jefferson,  etc.,Tp., 
122  Ind.  377,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R. 
796,  1234 

Rosenfield  v.  Howard,  15  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  546,  465 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Rosenthal  v.  Chisum,  1  N.  Mex. 

633,  1206 

Rosenthal  v.  Vernon,  79  Wis.  245, 

S.  C.  48IS!.  W.  Rep.  485,  540 

Rosenthal  v.  AVehe,  58  Wis.  621,     465 
Rosquistv. Furniture  Co. ,50  Minn. 

192,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  385,  705 

Ross  V.  Butler,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  294,     483 
Ross  V.  Clarke,  1  Dallas  (Pa.)  354, 

197, 198 
Ross  V.  Crews,  33  Ind.  120,  486 

Ross  V.  Eason,  4  Yeates  (Pa.),  54, 

1025,  1027 
Ross  V.  Fuller,  12  Yt.  265,  433 

Ross  V.  Gill,  1  Wash.  (Va.)  87,     1039 
Ross  V.  Glass,  70  Ind.  391,  432 

Ross  V.  Kansas  City,  48  Mo.  App. 

440,  1218 

Ross  V.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

6  Ind.  297,  392 

Ross  V.  Ross,  129  Mass.  243,  S.  C. 

37  Am.  R.  321,  291 

Ross  V.  State,  82  Ala.  65,  1056 

Ross  V.  Thompson,  78  Ind.  90, 

392,  483,  1068 
Ross  V.  Tits  worth,  37   N.  J.  Eq. 

333  1216 

Ross  'v.  United  States,  12  Ct.  of 

CI.  565,  1104 

Ross  V.  Watt,  16  111.  99,  596 

Rosser  v.  Barnes,  16  Ind.  502, 

1088,  1093 
Rosser  v.  McColly,  9  Ind.  587,  1110 
Rossett  V.  Gardner,  3  W.  Va.  531,  619 
Rossett  V.  State,  17  Ala.  496,  258 

Rosum  V.  Hodges.  1  S.  Dak.  308, 

S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  817,  365 

Roth  V.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

34  N.  Y.  548,  S.  C.  90  Am.  Dec. 

736,  525,  553 

Roth  V.  Colvin,  32  Vt.  125,  541 

Roth  V.  House  of  Refuge,  31  Md. 

329,  294 

Roth  V.  Miller,  15  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

100.  536 

Roth  V.  Railroad  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

548,  554 

Roth  V.  Roth,  104  111.  35,  289 

Rothchild  v.  Kohn   (Ky.),  19  S. 

W.  R.  180,  499 

Rothchild  v.  United  States,  6  Ct. 

of  CI.  204,  116 

Rothermel  v.  Marr,  98  Pa.  St.  285,  472 
Rothrock  v.;Perkinson,  61  Ind.  39,  677 
Rouch  V.  Zehring,  59  Pa.  St.  74,  740 
Roulo  V.  Valeour,  58  N.  H.  347,  545 
Rounds  V.  McCormick,  11  Bradw. 

(111.)  220,  737,  738 

Round  tree  v.  Stuart,  Breese  (111.), 

73,  618 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXVH 


{^lieferences  are  to  Pnf/es,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Roiint  V.  State,  14  Ind.  4!«,  1231 

Rous  V.  Wahleii,  82  Ind.  238,  3H3 

Roush  V.  Layton,  51  Ind.  10(i,  11(33 
Rout  V.  Ninde,  111  Ind.  oi)?, 

171,  175,  641,  1231 
Rout  V.  Ninde,  118  Ind.  123,  S.  C. 

20  N.  E.  R.  704,  626,  629 

Rowan  v.  State,  30  Wis.  129,  424 

Rowbothani  v.  Wilson,  8   H.   L. 

Cases  348,  484 

Rowden  v.  Brown,  91  Mo.  429,  128 
Rowe  V.  Brenton,  3  Mann.  &  Ry. 

133,  707 

Rowe  V.  Canney,  139  Mass.  41,  S. 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  219,  1124 

Rowe  V.  (lodfroy,  !(>  Me.  128,  514 

Rowe  V.  Palmer,  29  Kan.  337,  275 

Rowell  V.  Klein,  44  In<l.  290,  409,  455 
Rowher  v.  Hill.  60  Me.  172,  470 

Rowland  v.  Murphy,  m  Tex.  534,  378 
Rowland  V.  Shephard,  27  Neb.  497, 

S.  C.  43  N.  W.  Rep.  344,  621 

Rowlett  V.  Lane,  43  Tex.  274,  473 

Rowley   v.   Bartholemew,   37  la. 

374,  33 

Rowlev  V.  Bieelow,  12  Pick.  307, 

S.  C.  23  Ani.  Dec.  607,  520 

Rowley  v.  Howard,  23  Cal.  401, 

317,  456 
Rowley  v.  Rav,  139  Mass.  241,  1114 
Rov  V.  Horslev,  6  Ore.  382,  S.  C. 

25  Am.  R.  537,  155,  342 

Rov  V.  Goings,  112  111.  656,  1120 

Roy  V.  Rowe,  90  Ind.  54,  293 

Rov  V.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,   3  Wyo. 

417,  S.  C.  26  Pae.  R.  571,  1224 

Roval  British  Bank  v.  Turquand, 

6E11.  &  Bl.  327,  165 

Roval  Ins.  Co.  v.  Beattv,  119  Pa. 

St.  6,  S.  C.  12  Atl.  R.  607,  659 

Royal  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schwing,  87  Ky. 

410,  669 

Royal  Society  v.  Campbell,  13  L. 

R.A.601,  569 

Royer  v.  Fleming,  58  Mo.  438,  475 
Royer  v.  Foster,  62  la.  321,  S.  C. 

17  N.  W.  R.  516,  446,  447 

Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodvear,  6  Wall. 

153,  ■  1203 

Rubey  v.  Shain,  51  Mo.  116,  254 

Ruble  V.  Atkins.  39  la.  694,  1143 

Ruble  V.  McDonald,  7  la.  90,  1120 
Rubottom  V.  Shank,  5  Blackf.  122,  636 
Rubush  V.  State,  112  Ind.  107,  232 
Rubv  Chief,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gurlev,  17 

Col.  199,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  668,      612 
Ruch  v.  Jones,  33  Mo.  393,  1195 

Ruchman  v.  Decker,  28  N.  J.  E.  5, 

1186 
Rucker  v.  Beatv,  3  Ind.  70,  799 


7-Gfrj,  Vol.  If,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Rucker  v.  Dailev,  66  Tex.  284,         378 
Rucker  v.  Eddings,  7  Mo.  115,       1051 
Rucker  v.  Kei.l,  3(3  Kan.  4(38,  512 

Rucker  v.  Steelman,  73  Ind.  396,  34 
Rucker  v.  Wheeler,  127  V.  S.  85,  1059 
Ruckle  V.  Barljour,  48  Ind.  271,  403 
Ruckman  v.  Ransom,  23  N.J.  Eq. 

118,  578,  594 

Rudd  V.  Thompson,  22  Ark.  .363,  436 
Rud<l  V.  Woolfolk,  4  Bush  (Ky.) 

555,  231,  232 

Ruddell    v.   Tvner,   87   Ind.   529, 

1036,  1169 
Rude  V.  Mitchell,  97  :yio.  365,  406 

Ruilolph  V.  Landwerlen,  92  Ind. 

34,  820 

Rudol  ph.  V.  Underwood,  88  Ga.  664, 

S.  C.  16S.  E.  R.55,  1046 

Rudsdill  V.  Slingerland,  18  Minn. 

382  803 

Ruduiph  v.  Wagner,  36  Ala.  698,  401 
Ruff  v.  Ruff,  85  Ind.  431,  1030 

Ruffin  V.  Ratlin,  112  N.  Car.  102, 

S.  C.  16  S.  K.  R.  1021,  1137 

Ruffing  v.  Tilton.  12  Ind.  259,  1100 
Ruffner  V.  Love,  33  111.  App.601,  413 
Ruffner  v.  Mairs,  33  W.  Va.  655, 

195,  496 
Rugg  V.  Parker,  7  Gray  172,  191 

Ragles  V.   Keeler,  3  Johns.    (N. 

Y.)263,  375 

Rahland   v.   Jones,   55  Wis.  673, 

S.  C.  13  N.  W.  R.  689,  154 

Rahland  v.  Supervisors,  55  Wis. 

6(;4,  S.  C.  13  N.  W.  R.  877,  154 

Ruloff  v.  People,  45  N.  Y.  213, 

29,  30,  816 
Rumfelt  v.  O'Brien,  57  Mo.  569,  266 
Rammel  v.  State,  22  Texas  App. 

558,  S.  C.  3  S.  W.  Rep.  763,  696 

Rumph  v.  Hiott,  35  So.  Car.  444, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  235,  1090 

Rumsev  v.  N.  Y.  &  N.  E.  Rv.  Co., 

133  N.  Y.  79,  S.  C.  28  Am.'  St.  R. 

600,  52 

Rumsev  v.  People.  19  N.  Y.  41,  122 
Runals  v.  Brown,  11  Wis.  185.  639 
Rundell    v.    La    Fleur,    6    Allen 

(Mass.)  480,  596 

Runnels  v.  Kavlor  et  al.,  95  Ind. 

503,  ■  190,  192 

Runnels  v.  Moffat,  73  Mich.  188, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  224.  1243 

Runvon  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank, 

3  Careen  Ch.  480,  194 

Rupp  V.  Swineford,  40  Wis.  28,  629 
Rush  V.  Coal  Bluff   Mining  Co., 

131  Ind.  135.       .-148.  1041.  1050.  1051 
Ru?h  V.  French,  1  Ariz.  99, 

712,  718,  1206 


CCXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Rush  V.  Magee,  3t>  lad.  69,  679  | 

Rush  V.  Pe(figo.  63  Ind.  479,  1094 

Rushin  v.  Sliiekls,  11  Ga.  636,  S 

C.  -'16  Am.  Dei'.  436, 
Rushing    v.    Thompson,   20    Fla 

583. 
Rushton  V.  Aspinvvall,  2  Dougl 

679, 
Rusling  V.  Brav,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  174, 


1070 

'll99 

1209 
797 


Russell  v.Branham,  8  BUickf. 277,  1206 
Russell  V.  Clark,  60  Wis.  284,  596 

Russell  V.  Clark,  7  Cranch  69,  411 

Russell  V.  Coffin,  8  Pick.  143,  738 

Russell  V.  Davis,  51  Minn.  482,  S. 

C.  53  N.  W.  R.  766,  1220 

Russell  V.  Dyer,  40  N.  H.  173,  453 
Russell    V.   Englehardt,    24    Mo. 

App.  36,  389 

Russell  V.  Gilson,  36  Minn.  366, 

S.  C.  31  N.W.  R.  692,     446,  448,  449 
Russell  V.  Glasser,  93  Mo.  353,  S. 

C.  6  S.  W.  R.  362,  504 

Russell  V.  Gregg,  49  la.  89,  S.  C. 

30  Pac.  R.  185,  1090 

Russell  V.  Merrifield,  131  Ind.  148, 

R.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  957,  536 

Russell  V.  Perry,  16  N.  H.  100,  220 
Russell  V.  Post,  138  U.  S.  425,  543,  544 
Russell  V.  Quinn,  114  Mass.  103, 

665,  668 
Russell   V.  Rosenbaum,  24  Neb. 

769,  S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R.  287,  111 

Russell  V.  Russell  (Kv.),  12  S.W. 

R. 709,  225 

Russell  V.  Smvth,  9  M.  &  W.  810,  32 
Russell  V.  State,  68  Ga.  785,  543 

Russell  V.  Wheeler,  Hempst.  3,  298 
Russell  V.  W^ilson,  18  La.  367,  465 

Russell  V.  Work,  35  N.  J.  L.  316,  465 
Rust  V.  Shackleford,  47  Ga.  538,  656 
Ruston  V.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  432,  30 
Rutherford  v.  Davenport,  4  Tex. 

Ct.  App.  C.  C.  417,  S.  C.  16  S. 

W^  R.  110,  456 

Rutherford  v.  Fisher,  4  Dall.  22,  1178 
Rutherford  v.  Geddes,4  Wall.(U. 

S.)  220,  513 

Rutherford  v.  Metcalf,  5  Hayw. 

58,  480 

Rutter  v.  Tallis,  5  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 

610,  196 

Rval  v.  :Morris,  68  Ga.  834,  384 

Rvan  v.  Begein,  79  Ind.  356,  1068 

Rvan  v.  Burkam,  42  Ind.507,  466, 476 
Ryan  v.  Couch,  66  Ala.  244, 

179,  595,596 
Ryan  v.  Driscoll,  83  111.  415,  454 

Ryan  v.  .Jackson,  11  Tex.  391,  262 
Ryan   v.    Rockford   Ins.    Co.,   77 

Wis.  611,  1083 


1-602,  Vol.  11.  pp.  603-1244.] 
Ryan  v.  Varga,  37  la.  78,    134, 165, 324 
Rvan  v.  Wilson,  87  N.  Y.  471,  S. 

C.  41  Am.  R.  384,  89 

Ryder  v.  Twiss,  3  Scam.  4,  1201 

Ryder  v.  W^ombwell,  L.  R.  4  Exch. 

32,  1041 

Ryers,  Matter  of,  72  N.  Y.  1,  S.  C. 

*28  Am.  R.  88,  225 

Rvnes  v.  Dumont,  136  U.  S.  354,  110 
Rvno  V.  Ryno,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  522,  335 
Ryors  v.  Prior,  31  Mo.  App.  555,  1114 
Ryttenbergv.  Keels  (So.  Car.), 17 

S.  E.  R.441,  1218 


S 


Saar  v.  Fuller,  71  la.  425,  1055 

Sabin  v.  Angell,  44  Vt.  523,  578 

Sac  Co.  V.  Hobbs,  72  la.  69,  S.  C. 

.33  N.  W.  R.  368,  527 

Sacia  v.  DeGraaf,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

356,  380 

Sackett  v.  Ruder,  152  Mass.  .397,  S. 

C.  9  L.  R.  A.  391,  25  N.  E.  R. 

736,  665 

Saco  V.  Gurney,  34  Me.  14,  338 

Sacramento  Savings  Bank  v.  Spen- 
cer, 53  Cal.  7.37,  321 
Sadgrove  v.  Kirby,  6  Durn  &  E. 

488,  965 

Sadler V.  Kennedy,  11 W.  Va.  187,  386 
Sadler  v.  Niesz,  5  Wash.  182,  S.  C. 

31  Pac.  R.  630,  1136 

Sagev.  Brown,  34  Ind.  464,  1092, 1095 
Sage  v.Evansville,etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

1.34  Ind.  100,  1076,  1077 

Sage  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

18  Fed.  R.  571,  S.  C.  125  U.  S. 

361,  497 

Sagev.  Railroad  Co., 96  U.S.  712,  332 
Sage  v.  State,  127  Ind.  15,  803 

Sager  v.  Blain,  44  N.  Y.  445,  71 

Sailer  v.  Barnouskv ,  60  Wis.  169,  526 
Sailly  v.  Hutton,6Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

508,  629 

Saint  V.  Guerrerio,  17  Col.  448,  S. 

C.  30  Pac.  R.  335,  178,  1088 

Salem  v. Eastern, etc., Co. ,98  Mass. 

431,  425 

Saline  County,  In  re,  45  Mo.  52,  115 
Salisbury  v.  Howe,  87  N.  Y.  128,  111 
Salm  V.  State,  89  Ala.  56,  S.  C.  8 

So.  R.  66,  224 

Salmon  Falls  Bank  v.  Leyser,  116 

Mo.  51,  S.  C.  22S.  W.  R.504,     1208 
Salomon  v.  Cress,  22  Ore.  172,  S. 

C;.  29  Pac.  R.  4.39,  1079 

Saloy  y.  Collins,  .30  La.  Ann.  63, 

183,  1203 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


CCXXIX 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Salter  v.  Salter,  6  Bu8h.(Ky)  624,    232 
Saltmarsh  v.  Bower,  22  Ala.  221,     548 
Saltmarsh  v.  Tuthill,  12  How.  (U. 

S.)  387,  254,  492 

Saltonstall  v.  Rilev,  28  Ala.  164,  274 
Samis  v.  King,  40  Conn.  21)8,  1186 

Sampson  v.  lliint,  1  Root  207,  1186 
Sampson  V.Welsh,  24  How. (U.  S.) 

207,  113 

Samuel  v.  Agnew,  80  111.  553,  473 

Samuel  v.  Wiley,  50  N.  H.  353,  477 
Samuels  v.  Blanfhar(l,25  Wis.  329,  111 
Samuels  v.  Cooper,  2  A.  it  E.  752,  601 
Sanborn  v.  Fellows,  22  N.  11.473,  224 
Sanborn  v.  Kittredge,  20  Vt.  632,  301 
Sanborn  v.  Murphy  (Tex.),  25  S. 

W.  R.  459,  1157 

Sanchez  v.  People,  22  N.  Y.  147,  662 
Sandborn  v.  Cole,  63  Vt.  590,  S.  C. 

14  L.  R.  A.  208,  1082 

Sander,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yesler's  Es- 
tate, 2  Wash.  429,  S.  C.  27  Pac. 

R. 269,  1183 

Sanderlin   v.    Sanderlin,   24    Ga. 

583,  737 

Sanders  v.  Bagwell,  37  S.  Car.  145, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  714,  1121 

Sanders  v.  Bridges,  67  Tex.  93,  677 
Sanders  v.  Bryer,  152  Mass.  141, 

S.  C.  9  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  255,  25 

N.  E.  R.  86,  400 

Sanders  v.  Farrell,  83  Ind.  28,  1235 
Sanders  v. Hamilton, 3  Dana(Ky.) 

550  375 

Sanders  v.  Lov,  45  Ind.  229,  1182 

Sanders  v.  Peck,  131  111.  407,  402 

Sanders  v.  Rains,  10  Mo.  770,  432 

Sanders  v.  Sanders,  48  Ind.  84,  361 
Sanders  v.  State,  94  Ind.  147,  1073 
Sanders   v.   Weelburg,    107  Ind. 

266,  1096 

Sanders  v.  Williams,  75  Ga.  283,  187 
Sanderson  v.  Aetna,  etc.,  Co.,  34 

O.  St.  442,  1142 

Sanderson  v.  Caldwell,  45  N.  Y. 

398,  539 

Sanderson  v.  Penna.  Coal  Co.,  86 

Pa.  St.  401,  483 

San  Diego,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Neale,  78 

Cal.  63,  S.  C.  3L.  R.  A.  83,         1166 
Sandford  v.  Sinclair,  8  Paige  (N. 

Y.)  373,  496 

Saudford  v.  White,  56  N.  Y.  359,  431 
Sandon  v.  Proctor,  7  B.  &  C.  800,  175 
Sandry's  Succession,  11  La.  Ann, 

85,  290 

Sands  v.  Gelston,  15  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  511,  382 

Sanduskv,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hooks,  83 

la.  305',  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  61,       112 


.  1-(J02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Sandwicli  v.  Dolan,    141  111.  430, 

31  N.  E.  R.  416,  179 

Sanford  v.  Boring,  12  Cal.  539,  468 
Sanford  v.  Biilkli-v,  30  Conn.  344,  400 
Sanford  v.  Dick,  17  Conn.  213,  377 
Sanford  v.  (Jates,  38  Kan.  405,  S. 

C.  16  Puc.  R.  807,  624 

Sanford  v.  Sanfonl,  5  Day  353,  289 
San    Francisco  v.  Fulde,  37  Cal. 

353,  371 

Sanger  v.  Craddock  (Tex.),  2  S. 

W.  R.  196,  1063 

Sanger  v.  Flow,  48  Fed.  R.  152,       180 
San  Marcial  Land  Co.  v.  Staple- 
ton,  4  N.  Mex.  33,  S.  C.  12  Pac. 

R.  621,  112 

Santa  Clara  v.  So.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  182,  425 
Sargeant  v.  Clark,  108  Pa.  St.  588,  581 
Sargeant  v.  State  Bank,  12  How. 

(U.S.)  371,  451 

Sargent  v.  Flaid,  90  Ind.  501,  608 

Sargent  v.  Hampden,  32  Me.  78,  599 
Sargent  v.  Roberts,  1  Pick.  337,  S. 

C.  11  Am.  Dec.  185,  1077, 1078 

Sargent  v.  State,  96  Ind.  63,  1217 

Sargent  v.    State,    11   Ohio  472, 

1112,  1117, 1122 
Sartorious  v.  State,  24  Miss.  602, 

179,  695 
Sartwell  v.  Horton,  28  Vt.  370,  597 
Sasse  V.  State,  68  Wis.  530,  820 

Sasser  v.  Davis,  27  Tex.  656,  381 

Sater  v.  State,  56  Ind.  378,  1073 

Satterlee  v.  Bliss,  36  Cal.  489,  1128 
Satterley  v.  Morgan,  33  La.  Ann. 

846,  377 

Sauer  v.  Nevadaville,  14  Col.  54,  475 
Saulet  V.  Shephard,  4  Wall.  502,  1136 
Sauls  v.  Freeman,  24  Fla.  209,  S. 

C.  12  Am.  St.  R.  190,  S.  C.4  So. 

R  525  219 

Saunders  v.  Coffin,  16  Ala.  421,  184 
Saunders  v.    Payne,  12  N.  Y.  S. 

735,  "  395 

Saussv  V.  South  Florida  R.  R.  Co., 

22  Fla.  327,  794 

Savage  v.  Aldren,  2  Stark.  206,  360 
Savage  v.  Carleton,  33  Ala.  443,  413 
Savage  v.  State,  19  Flu.  561,  1202 

Savage  v.  State,  18  Fla.  970,  379 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dan- 
iels, 90  Ga.  608,  S.  C.  10  L.  R. 

A.  416,  1064 

Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lancas- 
ter, 62  Ala.  555,  487 
Savannah,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Savannah, 

etc..  Co.,  87  Ga.  261,  S.  C.  13  S. 

E.  R.  512,  480 

Saverv  v.  Busick,  11  la.  487,  1160 


ccxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{Eeferences  are  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  ])]) 
Savings,  etc.,  Society  v.  Horton, 

03  Cal.  310,  1-03 

Savings,  etc., Society  V.Thompson, 

32  Cal.  347,  450 

Sawin  v.  Kenny,  93  U.  S.  289,  1194 
Sa^vyer  v.  Boston,  144  Mass.  470,  1170 
Sawyer  V.  Chambers,  43  Barb.  ()22,  692 
Sawyer  v.  Corse,  17  Gratt.  230, 

1134, 
Sawyer  v.  Fellows,  6  N.  H.  107,  S 

C."2o  Am.  Dec.  432, 
Sawyer  v.  Gill,  3  Wood  &  M.  97, 
Sawyer  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R 

Co.,  37  Mo.  240, 
Sawyer  V.  Harmon,  136  Mass.  414,   435 
SawVer  v.  Harrison,  43  Minn.  297 

S."C.  45  N.  W.  R.  434, 
Sawyer  v.  McCaulay,   18  S.  Car. 

543. 
Sawyer  v.  IMiddlesborough  Town 

C6.  (Kv.),  17S.  W.  R-.  444, 
Sawyer  v.  Price,  6  Ala.  285, 
Sawyer  v.    Robertson,    11   Mont. 

416,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  Rep.  456, 
Sawyer  v.  State,  35  Ind.  80, 
Sax  V.  Davis,  71  la.  406,  32  N.  W. 

R.  403. 
Saxton  V.  Bacon,  31  Vt.  540, 
Saxton  V.  Smith,  50  Mo.  490, 
Sayles  v.  Briggs,  4  Metcf.(Mass.) 

421, 
Sayles  v.  Davis,  20  AVis.  302, 
Sayles  v.  Northwestern  Ins,  Co., 

2  Curtis  212, 
Sayles  v.  Sims.  73  N.  Y.  551, 
Savior  V.  Hicks,  36  Pa.  St.  392, 
Saylor  v.  Mockbie,  9  la.  209, 
Sayre  v.  Elyton,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ala. 

85, 
Savward  v.  Carlson,   1  "Wash.  29, 

S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  830, 
Sayward  v.Houghton,  82  Cal.  628, 
Scagel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  83  la. 
380,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  990, 

1090,  1093 
Scales  v.  Cockrill,  3  Head  432,        372 
Scales  V.  Shackleford,  64  Ga.  170,     719 
Scammon  v.  Chicago,  40  111.  146, 
Scammon  v.  Scammon,  28  N.  H. 

419, 
Scanlan  v.  O'Brien,  21  Minn.  434, 
Scarborough  v.  Reynolds,  12  Ala. 

252 
Scattergood  v.  Wood,  79  N.  Y.  263, 

S.  C.  35  Am.  R.  515, 
Scearce  v.  Scearce,  7  Ind.  286, 
Sea  well  v.  Crawford,  55  Fed.  R. 

729,  1198 

Schaeffner's  Estate,  45  AVis.  614,     636 
Schafer  v.  Weaver,  20  Kan.  294,     1048 


1135 

'  594 

489 

1071 


409 

373 

541 
436 

431 
1073 

'  512 
534 
192 

180 
456 

'  345 

1168 

1193 

495 

298 

610 
627 


449 

453 
469 

582 

719 

598 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Schaffner  v.  Kober,  2  Ind.  App. 

409,  S.  C.  28  N.  K.  R.  871,  1095 

Schall  v.  Eisner,  59  Ga.  190,  362,  742 
Scharble  v.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  9  Phila. 

136,  30 

Schaser  v.  State,  36  Wis.  429,  790 

Scheibel   v.   Fairbain,    1    Bos.  & 

Pul.  388,  553 

Scheland  v.  Erpelding,  6  Ore.  258,  159 
Schell  V.  Leland,  45  Mo.  289,  446, 614 
Schellhouse  v.  Ball,  29  Cal.  605,  1159 
Schen,  In  re,  74  N.  Car.  607,  341 

Schemerhorn   v.    L'Espenasse,   2 

Dall.  360,  486 

Schenectady  &  S.  Plank  Road  Co. 
v.  Thatcher,  6  How.  Pr.  226, 

1190,  1203 
Scherer  v.    Ingerman,    110    Ind. 

428  237,  636 

Sclieu  V.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y.  510, 

S.  S.  22  N.  E.  R.  1073,  554 

Schining  v.  Durst,  42  Pa.  St.  126,  550 
Schindell  v.  Gates,  46  Md.  604,  384 
Schindler  v.  Smith,  18   La.  Ann. 

476,  470 

Rchissel  v.  Dickson,  129  Ind.  139, 

S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  540,  319,  448 

Schlacker  v.  Ashland  Iron  Min. 
Co.,  89  Mich.  253,  S.  C.  50  N.W. 
R.  839,  534 

Schlaff  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.  (Ala.),  14  So.  R.  105,  740 

Schlawig  V.  De  Peyster,  83  la.  323, 
S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  785,  S.  C.  49 
N.  W.  R.  843,  438 

Schlemmer  V.  Myerstein,  19  How. 

Pr.  412,  1206 

Schlitz  V.'  Meyer,  61  Wis.  418,         605 
Schlitz  Brewing  Co.  v.  McCann, 
118  Pa.  St.  314,  S.  C.  12  Atl.  R. 
445,  559 

Schloss  v.  Creditors,  31  Cal.  203,  27 
Schloss  V.  Joslyn,  61  Mich.  267,  S. 

C.  28  N.  W.  R.  96,  313 

Schloss  V.  White,  16  Cal.  65, 

319,  1196 
Schlotter  v.  State,  127  Ind.  493,  820 
Schlueter  v.  Raymond,7  Neb.281,  199 
Schlungger  v.  State,  113  Ind.  295, 

148,  233 
Schmeiding  v.  Ewing,  57  Mo.  78,  361 
Schmidt  v.  Bauer,  80  Cal.  565,  369 
Schmidt  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  83  HI.  405,  664 

Schmidt  v.  Colley,  29  Ind.  120, 

467,  1233 

Schmidt  V.  Glade,  126  111.  485,        599 

Schmidt  v.  Mitchell,  84  111.  195,      629 

Schimidt  v.    Schmidt,   47    Minn. 

451,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  598,  1129 


TAHLE    OF   CASES. 


CCXXXl 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Schiiudt  V.  Thomas,  33  111.  App. 

10!»,  320 

Schmittv.Si-liinitt,32Minn.l30,  11U6 
Schiiiolil  V.  FuHco,  K;  N.Y.S.8{J2,  162 
Sfliiuiboi  V.  JJetts,  23  Fia.  178,  519 
ydiiieider  v.  Haas,  14  Ore.  174,  S. 

(J.  58  Am.  R.  2;je,  179 

Schneider  v.  Hosier,  21  Ohio  St. 

98,  10G7 

Schneider  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  R. 

Co.,  133  N.  Y.  583,  547 

Schneider  v.  Toml)ling,  34  Neb. 

661,  S.  C.  52  N.  \V.  K.  283,  1230 

Schnier  v.  People,  23  111.  17,  742 

Schnitzius  v.  Bailey    (N.  J.),  18 

Atl.  R.  192,  1183 

Schnur  v.  Ilickoox,  45  Wis.  200,  399 
Schock  V.  Garrett,  69  Pa.  St.  144,  363 
Schoeffler  v.  State,  3  Wis.  823, 

662,  666 
Schoelkop  v.  Leonard,  8  Col.  159,  531 
Schoener  v.  Lissauer,  107  N.  Y. 

Ill,  377 

Schotield  v.   Ferrers,  47  Pa.    St. 

194,  544 

Schofleld  V.  R.   R.  Co.,  114  U.  S. 

615,  S.  C.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1125,       1054 
Schotield  v.    Walrath,   35  Minn. 

356,  736 

Schoff  V.  Bloomfield,  8  Yt.  472,  ^  581 
School  Law  Manual,  In  re,  63  N. 

H.  574,  119 

School  Dist.  V.  Cooper,  29  Neb. 

433,  S.  C.145N.AV.  R.  618,       254, 1184 
School  District  V.  Lynch,  33  Conn. 

380,  537 

School  Town  of  Rochester  v. Sliaw, 

100  Ind.  268,  821,  823 

Schooner  Bolina,  etc.,  1  Gal.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  75,  276 

Schooner  Constitution  v.  Wood- 
worth,  1  Scam.  511,  296 
Schooner  Little  Charles,  1  Brock. 

354,  277 

Schoonover  v.  Reed,  65  Ind.  313,  1237 
Schrack  v.  Zubler,  34  Pa.  St.  38,  371 
Schrader  v.   Hoover  (la.),  54  N. 

AV.  R.  463,  1067 

Schriber  v.  Richmond,  73  Wis.  5, 

S.  C.  40N.  W.  R.  644,  111 

Schrieber  v.  Carey,  48  Wis.  208,  495 
Schrier  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

Wis.  457,  159 

Schriver  v.  State,  9  Gill  and  J. 

(Md.)  1,  599 

Schroder  v.  Schmidt,71  Cal.  399,  1203 
Schroeder  v.  Chicapro  R.  I., etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  47  la.  375,  810 

Schroeder  v.  Merchants', etc.,  Ins. 
Co.,  104  111.  71,  377 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Schroeder  V.  Schmidt,74  Cal.  459,   1044 
Schrubl>e  v.  Connell,  69  Wis.  476, 

S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  503,  1090 

Scluu-hardt  v.  Aliens,  1  Wall.  U. 

S.  359,  736 

Schuler  v.  Israel,  120  U.  S.  506,  475 
Schultz  V.  Board,  95  Ind.  323,  364 

Sclmlt/,  V.  Cremer,  59  la.  182,  1089 
Schultz  V.  Lempert,  55  Tex.  273,  598 
Schultz  V.  McLean,  76  Cal.  608,  S. 

C.  18Pac.  775,  1178 

Schultz  V.  Meiselbar,  144  111.  26,  1200 
Schultz  V.  Moon,  33  Mo.  App.  329,  621 
Schultz  V.  Schultz,  10  Gratt.  358, 

S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  335,  264,  274 

Schultz  V.  Third  Avenue,  etc.,  Co., 

89  N.  Y.  242,  408,  797 

Schultze  V.  :McLearv,  73  Tex.  92, 

S.  C.  11  S.  yV.  R.  924,  224,  229 

Schum  V.  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.,   107 

Pa.  St.  8,  547 

Schumann  v.  Pilcher,  36  111.  App. 

43,  705 

Schuster  v.  Rader,  13  Col.  329, 

184,  1189 
Schuster  v.Stout,30  Kan.  529,  180,  783 
Schutt  V.  Large,  6  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

373,  549 

Schuttler  v.  King,   12  :Mont.  149, 

30  Pac.  R.  25,  431 

Schuvler  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bollong,28 

Neb.  684,  S.  C.  45  N.W.R.  164,      460 
Schuyler  v.  Van  Der  Veer,  2  Caines 

(N.  Y.)  235,  595 

Schuvlkill  County  v.  Boyer,  125 

Pa"  St.  226,  113,  332,  609 

Schwab  v.  Mabley,  47  Mich.  512,  613 
Schwab  V.  Owens,  11  Mont.  473,  S. 

C.  29  Pac.  190,  1082 

Schwabackerv.  Reilly,2  Dill.  127,  436 
Schwarz  v.  Oppold,  74  N.Y.  307,  1213 
Schwass  V.  Hershev,  125  111.  623,  502 
Scobev  V.  Walker,  114  Ind.  254.  484 
Scofield  V.  AVhitelegge,  49  N.  Y. 

259,  528 

Scogins  V.  Perry,  46  Tex.  Ill,  297 

Scoland  v.  Scoland.  4  Wash.  118, 

S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  930,  179 

Scorpion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marsano  10 

Nev.  370.  298,  445,  452 

Scott  V.  Allen,  1  Tex.  508,  1181 

Scott  V.  Avery,  5  H.  L.  Cases  811,  408 
Scott  V.  Barnes.  7  Pa.  St.  134,  595 

Scott  V.  Board,  101  Ind.  42.  1226, 1233 
Scott  V.    Buchanan,   11   Humph. 

(Tenn.)  468,  556 

Scott  V.  Chope,  33  Neb.  41,  S.  C 

49  N.  AV.  R.  940.  655,  660,  1167 

Scott  V.  Coxe,  20  Ala.  294,  524,  715 
Scott  V.  Crews,  72  Mo.  261,  221 


CCXXXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Scott  V.  Cromwell,  Breese  (Ill.)25,   620 
Scottv.Doueghy,17B.Mou.(Ky.) 


321, 
Scott  V 
Scott  V 
Scott  V 
Scott  V 
Scott  V 
Scott  V. 

216,  S 


Hull,  8  Conn.  296 
Hull,  14  Ind.  136, 


465 
669 
603,  604 


Jones,  4  Taunt.  865,  506 

Hunter,  46  Pa.  St.  192,       534 
Key,  11  La.  Ann.  232,        292 
Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Giff. 
C.  27  L.  J.  Ch.  641.  406 

Co.,  3  De 


Scott  V.  Liverpool,  etc 

G.  &  J.  334, 
Scott  V.Minneapolis,  etc. ,42  Minn. 

179,  1202 

Scott  V.  Moore,  41  Vt.  205,  665 

Scott  V.  Morse,  54  la.  732,  1160 

Scott  V.  Nichols,  27  Miss.  94,  S.  C. 

61  Am.  Dec.  503, 
Scott  V.  Niles,  40  Vt.  573, 
Scott  v.Pentz,  5  Sandf .  (N.Y.)572, 
Scott  V.  People,  142  111.  291,  S.  C. 

33  N.  E.  R.  180, 
Scott  V.  People,  141  111.  195,  S.  C. 

30  N.  E.  R.  329,  525,  1072 

Scott  V.  Scott,  110  Pa.  St.  387,  S 

C.  2  Atl.  R.  531, 
Scott  V.  Sheakly, 3  Watts  (Pa.)50, 
Scott  V.  State,  7  Lea  (Tenn.)  232, 
Scott  V.  State,  64  Ind.  400, 
Scott  V.  Van  Sandau,  6  Q.  B.  237, 
Scott  V.  Willis,  122  Ind.  1, 
Scotland   Co.  v.   Hill,  112  U.  S 

183, 
Scotten  V.  Divilbiss,  60  Ind.  37, 
Scotton  V.  Mann,  89  Ind.  404, 
Screven  v.  Clark,  48  Ga.  41, 
Scripps  V.  Reilly,  38  Mich.  10, 
Scripps  V.  Reilly,  35  Mich.  371,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  Rep.  575, 

692,  693,  819,  823 
Scriven  v.  Hursh,  39  Mich.  98,  1180 
Scroggs  V.  Stevenson,  100  N.  Car. 

354,  1143,  1207 

Scruggs  v.  Scruggs,  46  ;Mo.  271,        435 
Scudder  v.  Massengill,  88  Ga.  245, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  571, 
Scudder  v.  Morris,  3  N.  J.  L.  13, 

S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec.  382, 
Scudder  v.  Trenton  Co.,  1  Saxton 

Ch.  (N.  J.)  694,  S.  C.  23  Am. 

Dec.  756, 
Scudder  v.  VanAmburgh,  4  Edw. 
I    Ch.  29, 

Scuffletown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McAllis- 
ter, 12  Bush.  312, 
Seaboard   Mfg.  Co.  v.  Woodson, 

94  Ala.  143,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  87,     1069 
Seaburv  v.  Bolles,  51  N.  J.  L.  103, 

S.  C.'21  Atl.  R.  052,  S.  C.  11  L. 

R.  A.  136,  535 


407 


364 
604 
506 

557 


1112 
541 
821 
797 
593 
411 

'  714 

1234 

1193 

409 

713 


434 
395 


643 
499 


136 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Seal    v.   State,   13   Smed.   &    M. 

(Miss.)  28(),  668 

Seale  v.  Mitchell,  5  Cal.  401,  119 

Sealy  v.  California  Lumber  Co., 

19  Ore.  94,  S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  197,  612 
Sealy  v.  State.  1  Ga.  213,  S.  C.  44 

Am.  Dec.  641,  802 

Seamster  v.  Blackstock,   83  Va. 

232,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  262,  340 

Searcy  v.  Hunter,  81  Tex.  644,  S. 

C.  26  Am.  St.  R.  837,  554,  556 

Sears  v.  Carrier,  4  Allen,  339,  354 
Sears  v.  Starbird,  78  Cal.  225,  S.  C. 

20  Pac.  R.  547,  384,  454 
Sears  v.  Terry,  26  Conn.  273,  314 
Sears  v.  Vincent,  8  Allen  (Mass.) 

507,  598 

Seaside  Hotel  Co.  v.  Hazelhuro 

(N.  J.),  25  Atl.  R.  201,  485 

Seaton  v.  Swem,  58  la.  41,  653 

Seavey  v.  Potter,  121  Mass.  297,  353 
Seavey  v.Seavey,  30  111.  App.625,  1129 
Sebree  v.  Dorr,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

558,  502,  504 

Seckler  v.  Delfs,  25  Kan.  159,  1179 
Secombe  v.  Kittelson,  29  Minn. 

555,  144 

Second  Nat.  Bank  v.  Wentzel,151 

Pa.  St.  142,  S.C.  24  Atl.  R.  1087,  799 
Secor  V.  Witter,  39  Ohio  St.  218,  473 
Security  Co.  v.  Arbuckle,  123  Ind. 

518,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  329,  4-50,  451 
Sedgwick  v.   Mench,   6   Blatchf. 

156,  195 

Seebrock  v.  Fedawa,  30  Neb.  424, 

S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  650,  679 

Seeley  v.  Tavlor,  17  Col.  70,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  R.'723,  319 

Seely  v.  Howard,  13  Wis.  336,  404 
Seely  v.  Pelton,  63  111.  101, 

585,  587,  597 
Seem  v.  McLees,  24  111.  192,  396 

Seers  v.  Grandy,  1  Johns.  (N.Y.) 

514,  622 

Segar  v.  Parrish,  20  Gratt.  672,  132 
Segars  v.  Segars,  76  ^le.  96,  457 

Segee  v.  Thomas,  3  Blatchf.  11,  327 
Segrist  v.  Crabtree,  131  U.  S.  287, 

S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  687,  550 

Seibel  v.  Simeon,  62  Mo.  255,  299 

Seibert  v.  Leonard,  21  Minn.  442, 

1068 
Seifert  v.  Brooks.  34  Wis.  443,  424 
Seifrath  v.  State,  35  Ark.  412,  1156 
Seig  v.  Long,  72  Ind.  18,  192 

Seip  v.  Torch,  .52  Pa.  St.  210,  517 

Seligman  v.  Rogers,  113  Mo.  642, 

S.  C.  21  S.  W.  R.  94,  1057 

Sellars  v.  Carpenter,  27  Me.  497,  173 
Selleck  v.  French,  6  Am.Dec.  188,    394 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXUl 


[References  are  to  Pnfjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Selleck  v.  Phelps,  11  Wis.  880,        196 
Seller  v.  Jenkins,  97  Ind.  4o0, 

736   799 
V.  Cheney,  70  Ga.  790,       '  142 
V.  Jones,  22  Pa.  St.  423,       550 
V.  Mvers,  7  Ind.  App.  148, 
34  N".  K.  li.  496,  1048 

V.  People,  4  111.  412,  668 

V.  Adams,  15  Johns.  197, 


Sellers 
Sellers 
Sellers 

S.  C 
Sellers 
Sellick 

574,  596 

Sells  V.  Hoare,  3  Bred.  &  Bing. 

232,  723 

Selover  v.  Bryant  (Minn.),  21  L. 

R.  A.  418,  796 

Seniple  v.  Goehringer  (Minn.),  54 

N.  W.  R.  481,  592 

Senft  V.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.,  14 

N.  Y.  Sap.  876,  110 

Senn  v.  Southern  R.  R.  Co.,  108 

Mo.  142,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  1007,      811 
Sennott's  Case,  146  Mass.  489,  S. 

C.  16  N.  E.  R.  448,  341 

Sentinel  Co.  v.  Thompson,  38  Wis. 

489,  1214 

Sercomb  v.  Catlin,  128  111.  556,  486 
Sergeant  v.  Dwver,  44  Minn.  309, 

S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  444,  559 

Serially  v.  Wells,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

196,  627 

Sarle  v.  Arnold,  7  R.  I.  582,  740 

Series  v.  Cromer,  88  Va.  426,  S.  C. 

13  S.  E.  R.  859,  1177 

Sermon  v.  Black.  79  Ala.  507,  318 

Servatius  v.  Piokel,  30  Wis.  507,  639 
Sessengut  v.  Posey,  67  Ind.  408,  1229 
Sessions    v.   Johnson,   95    U.    S. 

347,  1195 

Settle  V.  Alison.  8  Ga.  201,  S.  C. 

52  Am.  Dec.  393,  397,  1120 

Settlemier  v.  Sullivan,  97  U.  S.  444, 

438,  439,  452 
Sevier  v.  Teal,  16  Tex.  371,  146 

Seving  v.  Gale,  28  Ind.  486,  567 

Sewall  V.  Glidden,  1  Ala.  52,  1106 

Sewall  V.  Ridlon,  5  Greenl.  (Me.) 

452,  146 

Sewull  V.  Robbins,  139  Mass.  164,  513 
Sewall  V.  Sewall,  122  Mass.  156,  287 
Seward  v.  Arms,  145  :\Iass.  195,  473 
Seward  v.  Havden,  150  Mass.  158, 

S.  C.  22  X.  E.  R.  629,  379 

Seward  v.  Jackson,  8  Cow.  (X.  Y.) 

406.  1103 

Sewanl  v.  Rochester,109N.Y.  164,  589 
Sewell  V.  (lardner,  4S  :Md.  17S,  795 
Sexton  V.  Bennett,  63  Hun  ()24,  S. 

C.  17  N.  Y.  Supp.  437,  185,  187 

Sexton  V.  Pike,  13  Ark.  193,  262,  1130 
Sexton  V.  Rhames,  13  Wis.  99.  444 
Seymour  v.  Bailey,  76  Ga.  338,        677 


.  J-fJ02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1 244.'\ 
Seymour  v.  Board  of  Supervisors, 

40  Wis.  62,  177 
Seymour   v.    Cummins,  119    Ind. 

148,  1232 

Seymour  v.  Delancv,  3  Cowan  445, 

S.  C.  14  Am.  DeJ.  552,  176 

Seymour  v.  Ely,  37  Conn.  103,  1241 
Seymour  v.  Judd,  2  N.  V.  464,  298 
Seymour  v.  Hazard,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  1,  476 

Seymour  v.  Phillips,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

Biss.  (C.  C.)460,  173 

Seymour  v.  State,  15  Ind.  288,  138 
Sevmour,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brodhecker, 

130  Ind.  389,  1227,  1235 

Shackleford  v.  Bailey,  35  III.  387,  551 
Shackleford  v.  Levv,63  Miss.  125,  191 
Shackleford  v.  Pu'rket,   2  A.    K. 

Marsh.  (Ky.)  435,  S.  C.  12  Am. 

Dec.  432,  584,  597 

Shackleford  v.  State,  79  Ala.  26,  632 
Shackelford's  .\dm'r.  v.  Shackel- 
ford, 32  Gratt.  (Va.)  481,  497 
Shackman  v.  Little,  87  Ind.  181,  434 
Shadbourne  v.  Zilsdorf,  34  Minn. 

43,  1130 

Shaefer  V.  Gates,  2  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

453,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  164,  428 

Shaefferv.  Hoffman,  113  Pa.  St.  1,  382 
Shafer  v.  Munma,  17  Md.  331,  119 
Shaffer  v.  Sandwall,  33  la.  579,  465 
Shaffer  v.  State,  27  Ind.  131,  1124 

Shaffer  v.  Trimble,  2  Greene  (la.) 

464,  604 

Shafto  V.  Shafto,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  34,  808 
Shahan  v.  Swan,  48  Ohio  St.  25,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  222,  704 

Shaifer  v.  Baker,  38  Ga.  135,  579 

Shainwald   v.    Lewis,  6  Fed.    R. 

766,  487 

Shainwald  v.  Lewis,  46  Fed.  R. 

839,  476 

Shand  V.  Hanlev,  71  N.  Y.  319  187 
Shane  v.  McNeill,  76  la.  459,  S.  C. 

41  N.  W.  R.  166,  73 
Shank  v.  Flemina:,  9  Ind.  189,  675 
Shank  v.  Shoemaker,  18  N.  Y.  489,  569 
Shanklin  v.  Sims,  110  Ind.  143,  484 
Shannon  v.  Hanks,  88  Va.  338,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  437,  194,  496 

Sharker   v.   Mansfield,  90  N.  Y. 

227,  ■  364 

Sharman  v.  ,A[orton,  31  Ga.  34,  619 
Sharon  v.  Sharon,  79  Cal.  635,  804 
Sharon  v.  Terrv,  36  Fed.  R.  337,  299 
Sharon  v.  Tucker.  144  U.  S.  533, 

S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  720,  371 

Sharp  V.  Brunnings,  35  Cal.  528,  320 
Shari>  V.  Daugnev.  33  Cal.  505.  451 
Sharp  V.  Hall,'  86  Ala.  110,       800,  801 


CCXXXIV 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Sharp  V.  Magiiire,  19  Cal.  577,        378 
Sharp  V.  Miilia,  124  Ind.  407, 

^  1108,  1150 

Sharp  V.  Moffitt,  94  Ind.  240,         1200 
Sharp  V.  Pike,  5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

155,  161 

Sharp  V.  Sharp,  27  Ind.  507,  1138 

Sharp  V.  State,  51  Ark.  147,  S.  C. 

14  Am.  St.  R.  27,  516,1069 

Sharp  V.  Todd,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  324,      404 
Sharpe  v.  San  Paulo,  etc.,  Co.,  L. 

R.  8  Ch.  597,  406 

Shatto  V.  Crocker,  87  Cal.  629,  S. 

C.  25Pac.  R.  921,  1215 

Shattuck  V.  Allen,  4  Grey  (Mass.) 

540,  540 

Shattuck  V.  Cassidy,  3  Ed.  Ch.  R. 

152,  281 

Shattuck  V.  Myers,  13  Ind.  46,  S. 

C.  74  Am.  Dec.  236,  629,  781 

Shattuck   V.   North  British,  etc., 

Co.,  58  Fed.  609,  1113 

Shaughessev  v.   St.   Louis,   etc., 

Co.,  7  Mo".  App.  591,  1233 

Shaver  v.  Letherby,  73  Mich.  500, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  677,  457 

Shaver  v.  McCarthy,  110  Pa.  St. 

339  1070 

Shaver  v.  White,  6  Munf .        110,  310 
Shaw  V.  Beers,  25  Ala.  449,  354 

Shaw  V.  Bill,  95  U.  S.  10,  459 

Shaw-  v.  Burney,  86  N.  Car.  331,     1105 
Shaw  v.  Cade,  54  Tex.  307,  631 

Shaw  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

82  la.  199,  47  N.  W.  R.  1004,  ^      566 
Shaw  V.  County  Court,  30  W.  Va, 

488,  '  1025 

Shaw  V.    Gould,    L.  R.    3  H.  L. 

Cas.  55,  292 

Shaw  V.  Hamilton,  10  Ind.  182, 

626,  632,  635 
Shaw  V.  Lyford,  14  N.  H.  121,  1048 
Shaw    V.    McCombs,    2   Bay.  (S. 

Car.)  232,  HH 

Shaw  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  150 
Mass.  182,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R. 
884,  1143 

Shaw  V.  Padley,  64  Mo.  -519,^^^^   ^^^^ 

Shaw  V.  Quincy  Min.  Co.,  145  TJ. 

S.  444,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  935, 

312,  613 
Shaw  V.  Schoonover,  1.30  111.  448,  519 
Shaw  V.  Williams,   87  Ind.    158, 

S.  C.  44  Am.  R.  756,  449 

Shaw  V.  Wood,  8  Ind.  518,  1122 

Shawhan    v.  Loffer,  24    la.   217, 

274,  427 
Shawneetown  v.   Baker,    85   111. 

563,  581 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Shay  v.  Richmond,  1  Bush.  (Ky.) 

108,  1042 

Sheahan  v.  Barry,  27  Mich.  217,     1097 
Shealy  v.  Edwards,  75  Ala.  411,     1070 
Sheanon  v.  Pac.  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  83 
Wis.   507,   S.   C.   53   N.  W.  R. 
878,  1041 

Shearer V. Handy,  22  Pick.  (Mass.) 

417,  598 

Shearer  v.  Peele  (Ind.  App.),  36 

N.  E.  R.  455,  1027 

Shearman  v.  N.  Y.,  etc..  Mills,  11 

How.  Pr.  269,  1180 

Shearman  v.  State,  1  Tex.  App. 

215,  S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  402,  143 

Sheboygan    v.    Sheboygan,    etc., 

Co.,  21  Wis.  667,  483 

Shed  V.  Hawthorne,  3  Xeb.  179,  483 
Shedden  v.  Patrick,  1  Macqu.835,  292 
Sheehan's  Case,  122  Mass.  445,  S. 

C.  23  Am.  R.  374,  216 

Sheehan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sims,  36  Mo. 

App.  224,  611,  1212 

Sheehv  v.  Mandeville,  6  Cranch 

254,'  1195 

Sheeks  y.  FilUon,  3  Ind.  App.  262, 

S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  443,  257,  486 

Sheeley  v.  Wiggs,  32  Mo.  398,  346 
Sheets'y.  Brav,  125  Ind.  33,  668,  1132 
Sheets  v.  Selden,  2  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

177,  379 

Sheffield  v.  Clark,  73  Ga.  92,  596 

Sheffield  v.  Mullin,  28  Minn.251,  1163 
Sheibley  v.  Hill,  57  Ga.  232,  519 

Shelburn  y.  Robinson,  8  111.  597,  364 
Shelby  v.  Commonwealth,  91  Ky. 

.563,'S.  C.  ISS.  W.R.  461,  664 

Shelby  V.  Guy,  11  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

361,"  373 

Shelby  v.  State,  97  Ala.  87,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  727.  1064 

Sheldon  v.  Atlantic  Fire,  etc.,  Co., 
26  N,  Y.  460,  S.  C.  84  Am.  Dec. 
213  1045 

Sheldon  v.  Burry,39  111.  App.  154,  514 
Sheldon  v.  Newton,  3  Ohio  St.  494, 

242,  274,  293 
Sheldon  v.  Stryker,  42  Barb.  284,  1164 
Sheldon  v.  Wright,  1  Seld.  (N.Y.) 

497,  242,  318,  320,  427 

Shellenbarger  V.  Biser,  5 Neb.  195,  345 
Shelton   v.  Alcox,  11  Conn.  240, 

.594,  598 
Shelton  v.  O'Brien,  76  Ga.  820,      1120 
Shelton  v.Tiffin,6  How. (U.S. )163,   312 
Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ashby,  86  Va.  232,  S.  C.  19  Am. 
St.  R:  898,  435,  436 

Shenners  y.West  Side,  etc.,  Co.,  78 
Wis.  .382,  S.  C.  47  N.W.  R.  622,     1097 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXV 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Shepiird    v.    (ii<l«lings,   22   Conn. 

282,  504,  507 

Sliepard   v.   Missouri  Pac.  R.  R. 

Co.,  85  Mo.  029,  S.  C.  55  Am.  R. 

390,  810 

Sliepard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

00  Hun  584,  S.  C.  15  N.  Y.  Supp. 

175,  1215 

yiiopard  V.  Ryers,  15  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)497,  598 

Shepard  v.  Wright,  113  N.  Y.  582,  312 
Shephard  v.  Brenton,  20  la.  41,  1190 
Shephard  v.  Citv  of  WheeUng,  30 

W.  Va.  479,  S."  C.  4  S.  E.  R.  035,  213 
Shephard  v.  Rliodes,  00  111.  301,  335 
Shepherd  v.  Cassidav,  20  Tex.  24,  542 
Shepherd  v.   Pepper,    133   U.   S. 

020,  1186 

Shepherd  v.  State,  04  Ind.  43,  1170 
Shepherd  v.  Thompson,  122  U.  S. 

231,  382,  383 

Shepherd  v.  Ware,  40  jNIinn.  174, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  212,  444 

Shepherd  v.  White,  11  Tex.  346,  536 
Sheplev  v.\Vaterhouse,22  Me.497,  384 
Sheppard  v.  Steele,  43  X.  Y.  52,  349 
Sherl'ev  v.  Evansville,  etc..  Rail- 
road Co.,  121  Ind.  427,  1088.  1089 
Sheridan  v.  Brooklyn  Citv,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  SON.  Y.  39,      '  534 

Sheridan  v.|Jackson,  72  N.  Y.  170,  528 
Sherin  v.  Brackett,  30  Minn.  152,  371 
Sherlevv.  Billings,  8  Bush.  (Ky.) 

147,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Rep.  451,  77 

Sherman  v.  Barnard,  19  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  291,  567 

Sherman  v.  Bemis,  58  Wis.  343,  500 
Sherman  v.  Clark,  4  Nev.  138,  481 
Sherman  v.  Gundlach,  37  Minn. 

118,  457 

Sherman  v.  Hogland,  73  Ind.  472,  514 
Sherman  v.  McCarthy,  57  Cal .  507,  34 
Sherman  v.  Nixon,  37  Ind.  153,  190 
Sherman  v.  Sherman,  2  Bro.  C.C. 

(Perkins'  ed.)  370,  476 

Sherry  v.  Picken.  10  Ind.  375,  393 
Sheny  v.  Sampso.i,  11  Kan.  Oil,  213 
Sherwood  v.  Titman,.55  Pa. St.  77,  719 
Shewalter  v.  Bergman.   123  Ind. 

155,  181,315,1130,1238 

Shew  V.  Hews,  12(5  Ind.  474,  695 

Shewell  v.  Keen,  2  Whart.  (Pa.) 

332,  199 

Shickle,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v.  Wiley, 

etc.,  Co.,  61  Mich.  226,  S.  C.  1 

Am.  St.  R.  571,  442 

Shiedley  V.  State,  23  Ohio  St.  130,  738 
Shiel  V.  Maffett.  17  Ind.  310.  1-59, 161 
Shields  v.  Arnold,  1    Blackf.  109, 

1025,  1034 


.  l-fJOL\   Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Shields  V.  Cunningham,  1  Blackf. 

80,  "  780 

Shields  v.  State,  95  Ind.  299,  657 

Shields  V.  Tavlor,  13  S.  &  M.  127,  1188 
Shiels  V.  Stark,  14  (ia.  429,  1071 

Shifllet  V.  .Murelle,  08  Tex.  .382,  1099 
Shillito  V.  Sampson,  01  la.  40,  714 
Shinier  v.  Morris,  etc.,  Co.,  27  N. 

J.  Eq.  364,  484 

Shinnabarger  v.  Shelton,  41  Mo. 

App.  147,  1081 

Shipman  v.  Fletcher,  82  Va.  601, 

593,  001 
Shippen  v.  Kimball,  47  Kan.  173, 

S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  813,  445 

Shircliff  v.  State.  90  Ind.  369,  169,  625 
Shirk  V.  Wilson,  13  Ind.  129,  468 

Shirley  v.  Bvrnes,  34  Tex.  025,  469 
Shirley v.Hagar,3  Blackf .225,  432, 604 
Shirley  v.  Wright,  Salk.  700,  432 

Siiirts  V.  Irons,  28  Ind.  458,  159 

Shirts  V.  Irons,  37  Ind.  98,  512 

Shirts  V.  Irons,  47  Ind.  445,  637 

Shivers  v. Shivers. 32  N.  J.  Eq.  578,  478 
Shivers  v.  Wilson,  5  Har.  &  J.  130,  297 
Shockey  V.  Glasford,  6Dana(Kv.) 

9,  593,  601 

Shockley  v.  Bulloch,  18  Ga.  283,  465 
Shocklev  v.  Davis,  17  Ga.  177,  S. 

C.  03  Am.  Dec.  233,  406 

Shoemaker  v.  Benedict,  11  N.  Y. 

176,  384 

Shoemaker  v.  Brown,  10  Kan.  383,  318 
Shoemaker  v.   National   Bank,  2 

Abb.  410,  4S0 

Shoemaker  v.  Smith,  74  Ind.  71, 

174,  230,  033,  641,  1158 
Shoenberger's  Estate,  In  re,  139 

Pa.    St.    132,  S.   C.   20  Atl.    R. 

1050,  263 

Shoner  v.  Penna.  Co.,  130   Ind. 

170,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  010,  547,  1096 
Shonk  V.  Brown,  61  Pa.  St.  320,  117 
Shook  V.  Blount,  67  Ala.  301,  537 

Shook  V.  Pate,  50  Ala.  91,  816 

Shook  V.  Thomas,  21  111.  80,  618 

Shore  v.  Tavlor,  40  Ind.  245,  1157 

Shores  v.  Bowen,  44  :\Io.  396,  599 

Short  V.  Pratt,  6  Mass.  496,  592 

Short  V.  Stotts,  17   Am.    L.   Reg. 

(N.  S.)  587,  949 

Shotwell  V.  Smith,  20  N.  J.   Eq. 

79,  132 

Shoultz  V.  McPheeters,  79  Ind. 

373.  115 

Shover  v.  State,  10  Ark.  259,  542 

Show  V.  Grace,  25  Ark.  570,  004 

Showers  v.   Robinson,  43    Mich. 

502,  S.  C.  5  N.  AV.  R.  988,  318 

Shown  V.  Hawkins,  85  Tenn.  214,    383 


CCXXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Shreve  v.  Dulany,  1  Crancli   (U.  | 

S.)  499,  506  I 

Shropshire  v.  State,  12  Ark.  190,  218 
Shrover  v.  Bash,  57  Ind.  349, 

585,  586,  599 
Shrover  v.  Richmond,  16  Ohio  St. 

455,  ^28,  241 

Shufelt  V.  Barlass,  33  Neb.  785,51 

N.  W.  R.  134,  435 

Shugart  v.  Miles,  125  Ind.  445, 

118,  237,  1239 
Shuk  V.  Wilson,  13  Ind.  129,  1193 

Shular  v.  State,  105  Ind.  289,  815,  821 
Shulenbergv.  Far  well,  84111. 400,  469 
Shuniwav  v.  Stillman,   6  Wend 

447, 
Shumwav  v.  Stilhvell,4  Cow.  292, 
Shurtleff'  v.  Millard,  12  R.  I.  272 

S.  C.  34  Am.  R.  640, 
Shutte  V.Thompson,  15  Wall.  151, 
Sias  V.  Badger,  6  N.  H.  393, 
Sibbald,  Ex  parte,  12  Pet.  488, 

269,  347,  1185 
Sibby  V.  Crossley,  40  Fed.  R.  564, 

^  1236 

198 


242 
329 

47 
513 
455 


383 

525 

810 
452 

553 


354 


Sibert  v.  Humphries,  4  Ind.  481, 
Sibert  v.  Wilder,  16  Kan.  176,  S. 

C.  22  Am.  R.  280, 
Siblev  V.  Ratliffe,  50  Ark.  477,  S. 

C.  8  S.  W.  R.  686, 
Sibley  v.  Smith,  46  Ark.  375,  S.  C. 

55  Am.  R.  584, 
Siblev  V.  Waffle,  16  N.  Y.  180, 
Sice  V.  Cunningham,  1  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)  397. 
Sickman  v.    Abernathy,   14   Col. 

174, 

Sickman  v.Wilhelm,130  Ind.  480,  1105 
Sidelinger  v.  Bucklin,  64  Me.  371,  806 
Sidener   v.    Davis,   87   Ind.   342, 

181  641,  1210,  1230 
Sides  V.  Brendlinger,  14  Neb.  491,  595 
Sidnev   School   Furniture   Co.  v. 

Warsaw  School  Dist.,  122  Pa.  St. 

494,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  124,         1041 
Sidney,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Warsaw  School 

District,  130  Pa.  St.  76,  S.  C.  18 

Atl.  R.  604,  149,234,1147 

Sidwell  v.  Worthington  Heirs,  8 

Dana  (Kv.)  74,  451 

Sieber  v.  Frink,  7  Col.  148,  156 

Siebert  v.  State,  95  Ind.  471,  641, 1230 
Siebold,  Ex  parte,  100  U.  S.  371,  256 
Siedenbach  v.  Rilev,  HI  N.  Y.  560, 

S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R:  275, 
Sigafoos  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  39  Minn.  8, 
Sigournev  v.  Sibley,  21  Pick.  101, 

S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  248,     214,  217,  219 
Sikes  v.  Ransom,  6  Johns.  279,      1242 


551 
783 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'\ 
Sillivant  v.  Reardon,  5  Ark.  140,     676 
Silsbe  V.  Lucas,  36  111.  462,  246 

Silsbv   V.    Michigan   Car  Co.,  95 

Mich.  204,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R. 

761,  1081 

Silva  V.  Holland,  74  Cal.  530,  S. 

C.  16  Pac.  R.  385,  1042 

Silverman  v.   Foreman,  3  E.  D. 

Smith  (N.  Y.)  322,  705 

Silvia  V.  Garcia,  65  Cal.  591,  485 

Simar  v.  Canaday,  53  N.Y.  298,  1040 
Simcock  v.  Bank,  14  Kan.  529, 

608,  613 
Simcoke  v.  Frederick,  1  Ind.  54,  435 
Simmons  v.  Chicago  R.  R.  Co.,  110 

111.  314,  1053 

Simmons  v.  Gardiner,  6  R.  I.  255,  437 
Simmons  v.  Henderson,  1  Freem. 

(Miss.)  493,  496 

Simmons  v.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  147,  200 
Simmons  v.  McKav,  5  Bush.  25,  293 
Simmons  v.  Saul,  138  U.  S.  439,  S. 

C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  369,  324 

Simmons  v.  State,  61  Miss.  243,  1073 
Simmons  v.  United  States,  142  U. 

S.  148,S.C.  12Sup.Ct.R.171,     1071 
Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.Waible, 

11  L.  R.  A.  267,  S.  C.  47  N.  W. 

R. 814,  494 

Simms  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R. 

Co.,  27  S.  Car.  268,  S.  C.  30  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  571,  547 

Simms  v.  Todd,  72  Mo.  288,  163 

Simon  v.  Sevier  Co.,  etc.,  Assn. 

(Ark.),  14S.  W.  R.  1101,  465 

Simonds  v.  Harris,  92  Ind.  505,  471 
Simons  v.  Mills,  80  Cal.  118,  S.  C. 

22  Pac.  R.  25,  574,  601 

Simons  v.  Vulcan  Oil  Co.,  61  Pa. 

St.  202,  S.  C.  100  Am.  Dec.  628,      720 
Simons  v.  Walter,  1  McCord  (S. 

Car.)  97,  394 

Simonton   v.   Barrel  1,   21  Wend. 

362,  311 

Simpkins  v.  Smith,  94  Ind.  470,  1068 
Simplot  V.    Chicago,    etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  16  Fed.  R.  350,  366 

Simpson  v.  Budd,  91  Cal.  488,  S. 

C.  27  Pac.  R.  758.  1163 

Simpson  v.  Carleton,  1  Allen  109, 

S.  C.  79  Am.  Dec.  707,  505,  510 

Simpson  v.  Carson,  11  Ore.  361,  399 
Simpson  v.  Dall,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

460,  414,  505 

Simpson  v.  Dismore,  9  M.&  W.  46,  31 
Simpson  v.  Dix,  131  Mass.  179,  508 
Simpson  v.  Kirchbaum,  43  Kan. 

36,S.C.  22  Puc.R.  1018,  254,  1183 

Simpson  v.  McMilhon,  1  Nott  & 

McC.  192,  248 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXVll 


lliefereuces  are  to  Pages,   Vol.  I,  pj).  l-UVJ,   V»l.  II,  pp.  003-1244.1^ 


538 
470 

1183 

1182 

381 

537 

3(36 

306 
381 


307 
162 


Simpson  v.   Pegraiu,  112  N.  Car 

541,  S.  C.  17  8.  K.  R.  430, 
Simpson  v.  Putter,  18  Ind.  42!», 
Simpson  v.  Hothschild,  43   Kan 

33,  S.  C.  22  Pac-.  R.  1010, 
Sims,  Ex  parte,  44  Ala.  24S,_ 
Sims  V.  Bardoner,  86  Ind.  87, 
Sims  V.  Poyntun,  32  .\la.  353, 
Sims  V.  Cluittanouga,  2  Lea.  694, 
Sims  V.  City  of  Frankfort,  79  Ind 

446, 
Sims  V.  Everhardt,  102  U.  S.  300, 
Sims  V. Gay, 10!)  Ind. 501,     128,  165,  319 
Simsv.  Ilundlev,  6  How.  (U.  S.) 

1,  ■  618 

Sims  V.  Sims,  75  N.  Y.  466,  307 

Sims  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  605, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  410,  1226 

Sims  V.  State,  28  Tex.  App.  447, 

S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  653, 
Sinclair  v.  Ilollister,  16  N.  Y.  S. 

529, 
Sinclair  v.  Washington,  etc.,  Co., 

4  Mc Arthur  (I).  C.)  13,  1181 

Singleton   v.   O'Blenis,    125   Ind. 

151,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  154,  313,  607 
Singleton  v.  Pidgeon,  21  Ind.  118,  236 
Singleton  v.To\vnsend,45  Mo. 379,  364 
Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  700,  1 15 
Sioux  City  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Stout,  17 

AVall.  6o7,  1056 

Sioux   City,  etc.,  Co.   v.   United 

States,  34  Fed.  R.  835,  170 

Sire  V.  Ellithorpe,  etc.,  Co.,  137 

IT.  S.  579,  1229,  1239 

Sir  "William  Penn  y.  Lord  Balti- 
more, 1  Vessey,  Sr.,  444,  486 
Sisk  V.  Garey,  27  M(L  401,                601 
Sisson  V.  Barrett,  2  N.  Y.  406,        1103 
Sisson  V.  Conger,  1  Thomp.  &  C. 

564,  796 

Sites  V.  Eldredge,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  632, 

S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  769,  293 

Sites  V.  Miller,  120  Ind.  19,  1210, 1233 
Sithin  y.  The  Board,  m  Ind.  109,  975 
Sitler  y.  Gelir,  105  Pa.  St.  577,  31 

Sitting  y.  Birkestack,  38  Md.  158,  1076 
Sixth  Ayenue,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Gilbert, 

71  N.  Y.  430, 
Sizemore  v.  State,  3  Head.  26, 
Sizery.  Burt,  4  Denio  (N.Y.)  426, 
Sjoberg  y.  Nordin,  2()  Minn.  501, 
Skaggsy.  Given.  29  Mo.  App.  612, 
Skaggs  y.  State.  108  Ind.  53. 
Skarp  y.  Clark,  2  Mass.  91, 
Skelly  y.  Bank,  9  Ohio  St.  616, 
Sketchley  y.  Smith.  78  la.  .542,  S. 

C.  43  N.  W.  R.  524, 
Skidaway,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Brooks,  77 

Ga.  136, 


492 
308 
593 
220 
823 
741,1160 
197 
631 

627 

189 


.lones,  44  Ind.  136, 
Skillen,  41  Ind.  122, 
y.   Coolidge,    14   Mass. 


394 
1169 


Skillen  V 
Skillen  v 
Skillings 

43,  596 

Skinner  v.  I'.land,  87  N.  Car.  168,  255 
Skinner  v.  Conant,  2  Vt.  453,  S. 

C.  21  Am.  Dec.  554,  201 

Skinner  y.  Maxwell,  68  N.  Car. 

400,  196,  495 

Skinner  v.  Moore,  2  Day.  &  Batt. 

L.  138,  S.  C.  30  Am.  Dec.  155,  315 
Skinnion  y.  Kelley,  18  N.  Y.  355,  165 
Skipper  y.  State,  59  Ga.  63,  795 

Skyrme  v.  Occidental,  etc.,  Co., 

8  Nev.  219,  361 

Sladden   y.    Sergeant,    1  F.  &  F. 

322,  802 

Slagle  y.  IMurdook,  65  Mo.  522,  1157 
Slagle  y.  Rodmer,  58  Ind.  465,  1188 
Slater  y.  Mead,  53  How.  Pr.  57,  1123 
Slater  y.  Sherman,  5  Bush  20(5,  1164 
Slattery  y.   Donnelly,  1  N.  Dak, 

264,  S.  C.  47  N.  W'.  R.  375,  551 

Slaughter  y.  Gregory,  16  Ind.  250,  159 
Slauter  y.  ILdloweU.  90  Ind.  286,  603 
Slauter  y.  Whitelock,  12  Ind.  338,  723 
Slaven  y.  Wheeler,  58  Tex.  23,  224 
Slavonic,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Superior 

Ct.,  65  Cal.  500,  1184 

Slaymaker  y.  Wilson,  1  R.  P.  & 

AV.  (Pa.)  216,  365 

Sledge  y.  Blum,  63  N.  Car.  374,  490 
Sleeper  y.  Free  Baptist  Assn.,  58 

N.  H.  27,  437 

Slessman  y.  Crozier,  80  Ind.  487, 

207,  1139 
Slicer  v.  Bank  of  Pittsburgh,  16 

How.  (U.  S.)  570,  320 

Slingerland   v.    Morse,   8  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  474,  401 

Sloan,  Re  (N.  M.),  24  Pac.  R.  930,  478 
Sloan  y.  Cent.  la.  R.  R.  Co.,  62  la. 

728,  547 

Sloan  v.  Coburn,  26  Neb.  607,  S. 

C.4L.  R.  A.470,  1066 

Sloan  v.  Edwards,  61  Md.  89, 

799,  806 
v.  Lick  Creek,  etc.,  Co.,  6 
App.  584,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R. 

1154 
y.  McKinstry.   18   Pa.    St. 


Sloan 

Ind. 

997, 
Sloan 

120, 
Sloan 

Co., 


y.  New 
45  N.  Y 


R. 


York,  etc.,  R, 
125. 

Sloan  v.  Smitii.  3  Cal.  410, 
Sloan  y.  Witthank,  12  Ind.  444, 
siocomb,  Richards,  etc..  Ex  parte, 

9  Ark.  (4  Eng.)  375, 
Slocum  v.  Providence,  etc.,  Co..  10 
R.  I.  112, 


320 

801 
635 
615 

183 

315 


CCXXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IBeferenccs  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  p} 
Slocum  V.  Slocum,  17  Wis.  150,  446 
Slone  V.  Slone,  2  Met.  (Kv.)  339,  282 
Sloss  V.  DeToro,  77  Cal.  129,  305 

Slowman  v.  Wiggins,  6  C.  B.  276,  5S0 
Small  V.  Lawrenceburgh,  128  Ind. 

231,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  K.  500,  483 

Small  V.  McChesney,  3  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)  19,  •  379 

Small  V.  AVilliams,  87  Ga.  681,  S. 

C.  13  S.  E.  R.  589,  1078 

Smalley  v.  Anderson,  2  T.  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)56,  S.C.15  Am.  Dec.  121,    618 
Smaliey  v.  Hendrickson,  29  N.  J. 

L.  371,  539 

Smethurst   v.  Independent,   etc.. 

Church,  148  Mass.  261,  714 

Smilev  v.  Anderson  (Neb.),  44  N. 

W.  R.  86,  544 

Smith's  Appeal,  52  Mich.  415,  550 
Smith  V.  Adams,  130  U.  S.  167,  241 
Smith  V.  Alker,  102  N.  Y.  87,  589 

Smith  V.  Allen,  79  Me.  536,  1048 

Smith  V.  Arrapahoe,  etc.,  4  Col. 

235,  338 

Smith  V.  Arsenal  Bank, 104  Pa.  St. 

518,  1068,  1130 

Smith  V.  Arthur,  110  N.  Car.  400, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  197,  504 

Smith  V.  Baldwin,  85  la.  570,  S.  C. 

52  N.  W.  R.  495,  1202 

Smith  V.  Barclay  (Minn.),  55  N. 

W.  R.  827,       '  644 

Smith  V.  Barker,  3  Day   (Conn.) 

280,  622 

Smith  v.Bartram,ll  Ohio  St.  690,  381 
Smith  V.  Baugh,  32  Ind.  163,  1239 

Smith  V.   Bean,  46  Minn.  138,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  687,  1206 

Smith  V.  Bellows,  77  Pa.  St.  441,  1208 
Smith  V.  Bivens,  56  Fed.  R.  352,  482 
Smith  V.  Blair,  133  Ind.  367,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  1123,  367 

Smith  V.  Blakeman,  8  Bush  (Kv.) 

476,  '       231 

Smith    V.    Bossard,    2    McCord's 

Ch.  (So.  Car.)  406,  582 

Smith  V.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,36N. 

H.  458,  573 

Smith  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

120  Mass.  490,  545 

Smith    V.    Bradstreet,    16     Pick. 

(Mass.)  264,  468 

Smith  V.  Brady,  17  N.  Y.  173,  408 

Smith  V.  Braggs,  3  Denio  73,  408 

Smith  V.  Briscoe,  65  Md.  561,  797 

Smith  V.  Brittenham,  98  111.  188,  1047 
Smith  V.  Brown,  136  Mass.  416,  255 
Smith  V.  Bryan,  74  Ind.  515,  381 

Smith   V.    Burlingame,   4    Mason 

121,  289 


.  1-6-02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Smith  V.  Carrington,  4  Cranch  (U. 

S.)  62,  526 

Smith  V.  Cassity,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

192  379 

Smith  V.  Chapin,  31  Conn.  530,  371 
Smith  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

60  la.  512,  441 

Smith  V.  City  Council,  etc.,  19  Ga. 

89,  485 

Smith  V.  Clay,  Ambler,  645,  376 

Smith  V.  Colhns,  94  Ala.  394,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  334,  1069 

Smith  V.  Com.  (Ky.),  17  S.  W.  R. 

868,  622 

Smith  V.  Com.  Ins.  Co.,  49  Wis. 

322,  S.  C.  5  N.  W.  R.  804,  692 

Smith  V.  Compton,  6  Cal.  24,  1043 
Smith  V.  Cooley,  5  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

401,  601 

Smith  V.  Corporation  of  Washing- 
ton, 20  How.  (U.  S.)  135,  163 
Smith  V.  Creason's  Ex'rs,  5  Dana 

(Ky.)    298,  S.  C.  30  Am.  Dec. 

688,  623,  624 

Smith  V.  Crichton,  33  Md.  103,  1060 
Smith  V.  Cudworth,  24  Pick.  196,  1139 
Smith  V.  Cushing,  18  Wis.  295,  1165 
Smith  V.  Cutler,  10  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

589,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  580,  600 

Smith  V.  Demarest,  8  N.  J.  L.  195,  595 
Smith  V.  Dennie,  6  Pick.  (Mass.) 

262,  560 

Smith  V.  Derr,  34  Pa.  St.  126,  S.  C. 

75  Am.  Dec.  641,  292 

Smith  V.  Dickson,  58  la.  444,  474 

Smith  V.  Dubuque  Co.,  1  la.  492, 

255,  450 
Smith  V.  Eames,  3  Scam.  76,  S.  C. 

36  Am.  Dec.  515,  660 

Smith  V.  Easton,  54  Md.  138,  503 

Smith  V.  Eaton,  36  Me.  298,  S.  C. 

58  Am.  Dec.  746,  280 

Smith  V.  Ellendale  Co.,  4  Ore.  70,  342 
Smith  V.  Farra,  21  Ore.  395,  S.  C. 

20  L.  R.  A.  115,  666 

Smith  V.  Faulkner,12  Gray  (Mass.) 

Smith  V.  Finlev,  52  Ark.  373,  316 

Smith  V.  Flack,  95  Ind.  116,  1232 

Smith  V.  Floyd,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

522,  663 

Smith  V.  Gale,  144  U.  S.  509,  S.  C. 

12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  674,  499 

Smith  V.  Gardner,  12  Ore.  221,  S. 

C.  53  Am.  R.  342,  350 

Smith  V.  Gillett,  50  111.  290,  1041 

Smith  V.  Goodnight,  121  Ind.  312, 

S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  148,  269,  478 

Smith  V.  Goodwin,  86  Ind.  300, 

1109,  1142,  1155 


TABLE    OF    CASES 


CCXXXIX 


[References  are  to  Pnfjes,  Vol.  I,  pj 
Smith  V.  (iorliam,  119  Ind.  436,       714  | 
Smith  V.  (ioulil,  (>1  Wis.  31, 
Smith  V.  (iruver,  74  Wis.  171, 
Smith  V.   lluckley,  44  Mo.  App 

(114, 
Smith  V.  Hartley,  10 Com.  B.800, 
Siuitli  V.  Haworth,  53  Mo.  88, 
Smith  V.  Ilavs,  I'.S  111.  A\)]>.  l.'44, 
Smith  V.  Ileiler,  11!»  In.l.212, 
Smith  v.Ilemleison,  i»  M.&  W.798, 


178 
1158 

454 
594 

ISO 
1097 
31 
Smith  V.  Hess,  91  hid.  424,  140 

Smith  V.  Ilolfomb,  99  .Alass.  552,  597 
Smith  V.  Hood.  25  Pa.  St.  218,  S. 

C.  04  Am.  Dec.  092,  188,  190 

Smith  V.  James,  131  Ind.  131, 

1149,  1210 
Smith  V.  Jeffries,  25  Ind.  370, 

030, 638, 1151 
Smith  V.  Jii.lge,  17  Cal.  547,  030 

Smith  V.  Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  29 

Ind.  540,  248,  1137 

Smith  V.  Keen,  20  Me.  411,  240 

Smith  V.  Kellv,  23  Miss.  107,  S.C. 

55  Am.  Dec'.  87,  292 

Smith  V.  Kerr,  49  Hun  (N.Y.)  29,  437 
Smith  V.  Kirkpatrick,58Ind.  254, 

570,  582 
Smith  V.  Kyler,  74  Ind.575,  1010, 1231 
Smith  V.  Leavitts,  2  Ahi.  175,  410 

Smith  V.  Little,  07  Ind.  549,  1103 

Smith  V.  Lockwood,  13  Barb.209,  258 
Smith  V.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  Assn., 

78  Cal.  289,  1149 

Smith  V.  :\Iack,  24  N.Y.  Supp.  131, 

S.  C.  70  Hun  517,  026 

Smith  V.  Mavor  of  Boston,  1  Gray 

72  '  1180 

Smith  V.  McCall,  2  Humph.  103,  370 
Smith  V.  McCarthy,  33  111.  App. 

176,  712,  1097,  1206 

Smith  V.  McCool,  10  Wall.  500,  1193 
Smith  V.  IMcDonald,  42  Cal.  485,  293 
Smith  V.  McKean,  99  Ind.  101, 

1150,  1219 
Smith  V.  McLean,  24  la.  322,  33 

Smith  V.  INFcLean,  22  lll.App.451,  520 
Smith  V.  :\Ieldren,  107  Pa.St.348,  1121 
Smith  V.  Merchand,  7  S.&  R.(Pa.) 

260,  1034 

Smith  V.  :Miller,  8  N.  J.  L.  175,  S. 

C.  14  Am.  Dec.  418,  1191 

Smith  V.  Minor,  1  N.  J.  L.  16,  590 
Smith  V.  ]\Ioffatt,  1  Barl).  05,  311 

Smith  V.  :Mohn,  87  Cal.  489,  S.  C. 

25  Pac.  R.  096,  526 

Smith  V.  jNIorrill,  39  Kan.  665,  S. 

C.  18  Pac.  Rep.  915,  712 

Smith  V.  Mvers,  109  Ind.  1, 

il3, 170,  248,  251,  609,  1214 


1-ao-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-7244.] 
Smith  V.  Myers,  5  lilackf.  223,         190 
Smith  V.  Newland,  9  Hun  553,  ^      149 
Smith  V.  Niagara,  etc.,  Co.,  00  \'t. 

6S2,  714 

Smitli  v.Osljurn,  45  How.  Pr.  351 ,  1131 
Smith  V.  Paris,  70  Mo.  015,  000 

Smith  V.  Pattison,  45  Miss.  019,  450 
Smith  V.  People,  2  Col.  Ct.  App. 

99,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  924,  630 

Smith  V.  Poll.K-k,  2  Cal.  92,  576 

Smith  V.  Putney,  18  Me.  87,  1087 

Smith   V.   Railroad  Co.,  10  Gray 

(Mass.)  521,  600 

Smith  V.  Rines,  2  Sumn.  338,  119 

Smith  V.  Rock,  59  Vt.  232,  485 

Smith  V.  Rollins,  25  :\Io.  408,  456 

Smith  V.  Rosenham,  19  Ind.  256,  515 
Smith  V.  Sahler,  1  Neb.  310,  1182 

Smith  V.  Schwed,  0  Fed.  R.  455,  486 
Smith  V.  Sherman,  52  Mich.  037,  1208 
Smith  V.  Smith,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  500,  483 
Smith  V.  Smith,  2  Wend.  624,  1172 
Smith V.  Smith,  51  Wis.  665,  177, 1163 
Smith  V.  Smith,  88  Cal.  572,  S.  C. 

26  Pac.  R.  350,  313 

Smith  V.  Smith.  43  La.  Ann.  1140, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  248,  287 

Smith  V.  Smith,  91  Mich.  7,  S.  C. 

51  N.  W.  R.  094,  360 

Smith  V.  Smith,  28  111.  56,  591, 001 
Smith  V.  Smith,  4  Rand.  95,  583 

Smith  V.  Smith,  19  Neb.  700,  287 

Smith  V.  Smith,  13  Gray  209,  274 

Smith  V.  Smith,  106  Ind".  43,  641, 1230 
Smith  V.  Smith,  17  Ind.  75,  152 

Smith  V.  Smith,  77  Ind.  80,  041 

Smith  V.  Smith,  10()  Ind.  43,  1215 

Smith  V.  Smith,  2  Johns.  235,  389 

Smith  V.  St.   Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  32 

IMinn.  1,  813 

Smith  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

31  Mo.  App.  135,  634 

Smith  V.  State,  132  Ind.   145,  S. 

C.  31  N.  E.  R.  807,  619,  623 

Smith  V.  State,  58  Miss.  867,  803 

Smith  V.  State,  4  Neb.  277,  652 

Smith  V.  State,  42  Tex.  444,  815 

Smith  V.  State,  21  Tex.  App.  278,  822 
Smith  V.  State,  2  Ohio  St.  511,  812 
Smith  V.  State,  88  Ala.  73,  804 

Smith  V.  State,  4  Lea  (Tenn.)  428, 

179,  695 
Smith  V.  State,  51  Wis.  615,  S.  C. 

37  Am.  R.  845,  1110 

Smith  V.  State,  1  Tex.  App.  408,  189 
Smith  V.  Steel,  81  Mo.  455,  1203 

Smith  V.  Stevens,  10  Wall.  321,       258 
Smith  V.  Stewart,  41  Minn.  7,  S. 
C.  42N.  W.  R.  595,  540 


ccxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Heferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Smith  V.  Stewart,  5  Ind.  220,  598 

Smith    V.    Strother,   (58  Cal.  194, 

119,  212 
Smyth  V.  Sturges,  108  N.  Y.  495,  359 
Smith   V.     Siimmerlield,    108    N. 

Car.284,  S.C.12S.  E.R.  997,  1213 
Smith  V.  Sweeney,  35  N.  Y.  291,  587 
Smith  V.   Thomason,   26  S.  Car. 

1)07,  1184 

Smith  V.  Traders'  Nat.  Bank,  82 

Texas  368,    S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R. 

779,  504,  785 

Smith  V.  Trenton,  etc.,  Co.,  4  N. 

J.  Eq.  505,  498 

Smith  V.  Trisbie,  7  la.  486,  228 

Smith  V.  Troup,  7  Com.  B.  757,  582 
Smith  V.  Tupper,  4  Sm.  &  Mar. 

261,  S.  C.  43  Am.  Dec.  483,  326 

Smith  V.  Uhler,  99  Ind.  140, 

1132,  1142 
Smith  v.United  States,94  U.S.97,  1217 
Smith  V.   "Warden,   35   N.   J.    L. 

346,  470 

Smith  V.  Warn,  93  Cal.  206,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  R.  944,  537 

Smith  V.  Wells,  69  N.  Y.  600,  453 

Smith  V.  Wells,  6  Johns.  286,  1197 
Smith  V.  Wheeler,  58  la.  659,  376 

Smitli  V.  Whittier,  9  N.  H.  464,  154 
Smith  V.  AVilcox,  24  N.  Y.  353,  449 
Smith  V.  Wilson,  26  111.  186,  1212 

Smith  V.  Wood,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  563,  376 
Smith  V.  Woolfolk,  115  U.  S.  143,  335 
Smithson  v.  Dillon,  16  Ind.  169,  140 
Smithwick  v.  Anderson,  2  Swan 

(Tenn.)  573,  514 

Smock  V.  Harrison,  74  Ind.  348,  1132 
Smoot   V.  Eslava,  23  Ala.  659,  S. 

C.  58  Am.  Dec.  310,  712,  1215 

Small  V.  Jones,  6  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 

122,  653 

Smurr  v.   State,   105  Ind.  125,  S. 

C.  4  N.  E.  R.  445, 

105,  125,  142,  143,  164,  216,  233,  1076 
Smythe  v.  Boswell,  117  Ind.  365, 

136,  170 
Snaderson,  In  re,  74  Cal.  199,  1129 
Snavely  v.  Abbott  Buggy  Co.,  36 

Kan.  106,  S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  522, 

254,  1183 
Snead  v.  Coleman,  7  Gratt.  300, 

S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  112,  187 

Snell  V.  Bangor,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Me. 

337,  1120,  1122 

Snell  V.  Gregory,  37  Mich.  500,  794 
Snelling's  Will,  In  re,  136  N.  Y. 

515,  S.  C.  32X.  E.  R.  1006,  741 

Snelson  v.  State,  16  Ind.  29,  168,  240 
Snider  v.  Burks,  84  Ala.  53,  S.  C. 

4  So.  R.  225,  635 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Snoddy  v.  Howard,  51  Ind.  411,      308 
Snodgrass  v.  Bank  of  Decatur,  25 

Ala.    161,    S.    C.   60    Am.   Dec. 

505,  367 

Snodgrass  v.  Com.,  89  Va.  679,  S. 

C.  17  S.  E.  R.  238,  791,  1078 

Snodgrass  v.  Hunt,  15  Ind.  274, 

664,  1159 
Snodgrass  v.  Snodgrass,  32  Ind. 

406,  350 

Snook  V.  Snetzer,  25  Ohio  St.  516,     282 
Snow  V.  Carpenter,  54  Vt.  17,  189 

Snow  V.  Conant,  8  Vt.  301,  1172 

Snow  V.  Grace,  25  Ark.  570,  604 

Snow  V.  Indiana,  B.  &  W.  Ry.  Co., 

109  Ind.  422,  S.C.  9  N.  E.  R.  702,     71 
Snowden  v.  Insurance  Co.,  3  Binn. 

(Pa.)  457,  1034 

Snowden  v.  Preston,  73  Md.  261, 

S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  910,  185 

Snowden  v.  State,  17  Fla.  386,       1171 
Snowden  v.  Warder,  3  Rawle  (Pa.) 

101,  1229 

Snydacker  v.  Brosse,  51  111.  357, 

S.  C.  99  Am.  Dec.  551,  436 

Snvder  v.  Andrew's,  6  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  43,  640 

Snyder  v.  Bauchman,  8   S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  336,  173 

Snyder  v.Gorden,  46  Hun  (N.Y.) 

538,  548 

Snyder  v.  Kelso,  3  Wash.   181,  S. 

C.  28  Pac.  R.  335,  1136 

Snyder  v.  Kurtz,  61  la.  593,  537 

Snyder    v.   Nations,   5    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  295,  741 

Snyder  v.  Schram,  69  How.   Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  404,  434 

Snyder  v.  United  States,  112  U. 

S.  216,  1113 

Snyder  v.  Viola,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Idaho 

771,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  127,  1080 

Snyder's  Admr.  v.  McComb,  39 

Fed.  R.  292,  1177 

Sobernheimer  v.  Wheeler,  45   N. 

J.  Eq.  614,  496 

Societe  Francaise  v.District  Court, 

53  Cal.  495,  494 

Sodousky  v.  McGee,4  J.  J.Marsh. 

(Ky.)  267,  676,  818,  819 

Soell  V.  Hadden,  85  Tex.  182, 19  S. 

W.  R.  1087,  404 

John  V.  Marion,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ind. 

77  1232 

Sola'ry  v.  Stultz,  22  Fla.  263,  537 

Sollee  V.  Meugy,  1  BailevLaw(So. 

Car.)  620,      '  "  413 

Solomon  v.  Fuller,  14  Nev.  63,         192 
Solomon  v.  Norton  (Ariz.), 11  Pac. 

R.  108,  636,  637 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxli 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Solomon  v.  Tupelo  Compress  Co., 

70  M  i  ss .  822 ,  S .  C .  1 2  So .  R .  850,     603 
Solomon  K.   R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  34 

Kan.  443,  S.  C.  8  Pac.  R.  730,     1096 
Sommereamp  v.  Catlow,   1  Idaho 

71(i,  627 

Somerviile     v.    Dickerman,     127 

Mass.  272,  581 

Somerviile,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Doughty, 

22  X.  J.  L.  4i)5,  '     788 

Soper  V.  Manning,  158  Mass.  381, 

S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  516,  623,  1220 

Soper  V.  Meilherrv,  24  Kan.  128,     1162 
Sopris  V.  Trnax,"l  Col.  89,  1070 

Sorrels  V.  Trantham,  48  Ark.  386,      .361  ] 
Soule,  In  re,  46  Hun  (N.Y.)661,      434 
Soule  V.  Chase,  .Si)  N.  Y.  342,  285 

Soule  V.  Chase,  1  Rol).(N.Y.)  222,     449 
Sousterv.  Black  (la.),  54  N.  W. 

R.  534,  1219 

Southard  v.  Steele,  3  T.  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  435,  583 

South  Baltimore,  etc., Co.  v.  Muhl- 

bach,  6!)  Md.  395,  S.  C.  1  L.  R. 

A.  507,  519,  1072 

South  Bend  v.  Hardv,  98  Ind.  577, 

781,  797 
South  Bend  V. University  of  Notre 

Dame,  69  Ind.  344,  403 

South  Bend  Tov  Co. v. Dakota, etc., 

Co.  (S.  Dak.),  52  N.  W.  R.  866,     531 
South  Carolina  v.  Gaillard,  101  U. 

S.  433,  338 

Southern, etc., Co. V.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  210,  S.  C.  10  Fed. 

R.  289,  491 

Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Todd,  56 

Fed.  R.  104,  610 

Southern  Kansas  Co.  v.  Brown,  44 

Kan.  681,  S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  1100,    187 
Southern  Kan.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Walsh, 

45  Kan.  653,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  45,    1088 
Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.   Denton, 

146  U.  S.  202,  S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  44,  614 

Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Dufour,  95 

Cal.  615,  1146 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Rauh,  49 

Fed.  R.  69(5.  666 

Southern  Plank  Road  Co. v.  Hixon, 

5  Ind.  165,  486,  487 

Southey  v.  Nash,  7  Car.  &  P.  632, 

179,  695 
South  Haven, etc., Co. v.  Christian, 

49  Kan.  229,S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  154,  1236 
South  Omaha,  etc. .Bank  v.  Chase, 

30  Neb.  444,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R. 

513,  110,112 

South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S. 

260,  545 

P 


.  l-6Vli,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
South    Park  Conim'rs    v.  School 

Trustees,  107  111.  489,  679 

South  Platte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buffalo, 

7  Neb.  253,  424 

South  West,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith, 

85  W.  Va.  306,  S.  C.  17  Am.  St. 

R.  59,  1025 

Southwestern  Mut.Ben.  Assn.  v. 

Swenson,  49  Kan.  449,  S.  C.  30 

Pac.  R.  405,  441 

Southworth    v.    Smith,    7    Cush. 

(Mass.)  391,  404 

Sovern  v.  Yoran,  15  Ore.  644,  S. 

C.  13  Pac.  R.  395,  551 

Sowden  v.  Craig,  20  la.  477,  1167 

Sowders  v. Edmunds,  76  Ind.  123,  444 
Sowle  v.  Holdridge,  25  Ind.  119,  403 
Spackman    v.   Foster,  31    W.    R. 

548,  365 

Spafford    v.   Richardson,   13  Vt. 

224,  3.36 

Spahr  v.  Tartt,  23  111.  App.  420,  526 
Spalding  v.  Congdon,  18  Wend. 

543  189 

Spalding  v.  Kelly,  66  Mich.  693,  305 
Spanagal    v.    Dillinger,    38    Cal. 

278,  1163 

Spanagel    v.    Dellinger,   34    Cal. 

476,  1244 

Spangenberg  v.  Charles,   44   111. 

App.  526,  1235 

Spangler  v.   Kite,   47   Mo.   App. 

230,  660 

Spangler  v.  San  Francisco,  84  Cal. 

12,  S.  C.  18  Am.  St.  R.  158,  180 

Spangler  v.  Spangler,  122  Pa.  St. 

358,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  114,  383 

Spann  v.  Spann,  2  Hill's  Ch.l52,  299 
Sparhawk  v,Union,etc.,Co.,54  Pa. 

St.  401,  483 

Sparks  v.  Roberts,  65  Ga.  571,  380 
Sparks  v.  State,  59  Ala.  82,  1170 

Spaulding  v.  Farwell,  70  Me.  17,  377 
Spauldins  v.  Hallenbeck,  39  Barb. 

(N.  Y.T  79,  557 

Spaulding  v.  Homestead   Assn., 

87  Cal. ^40,  324,  427 

Spaulding  v.  Mozier,  57  111.  148,  33 
S])aulding  v.  Robbins,  42  Vt.90,  1087 
Spauldina;  v.  Strang,  38  N.  Y.  9, 

S.  C.  37  N.  Y.  13;-r.  1150 

Spauldine  v.  Wasson,  84  Cal.  141, 

S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  377,  527,  1146 

Spear  v.  Carter,  1  Mich.  19,  317 

Spear  v.  Hooper,  22  Pick. (Mass.) 

144,  596 

Spear  v. Spencer,  1  G.Greene  (la.) 

534,  663 

Spear  v.  Stacy,  26  Vt.  61,  578,  593 

Spearman  v.  AVilson,  44  Ga.  473,     590 


ccxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


195 
536 

574 

397 

"l234 
183 
513 

1159 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Spears  v.  Burton,  31  Miss.  547,        520 
Spears  v.  Clark,  6  Blackf.  167,       1235 
Spears  v.  Forrest,  15  Vt.  435,  804 

Spears  v.  Mathews,  66  N.Y.  127,     255 
Spect  V.  Spect.  88  Cal.  437,  S.  C. 

22  Am.  t^t.  R.  314,  1147 

Speer  v.  McChesney,  2  Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)  233,  597 

Speidel  v.  Henrici,  120  U.  S.  377, 

S   C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  610,  372,  376 

Speight  V.  The  People,  87  111.  595,    115 
Speights  V.  Peters,  9  Gill  (Md.) 

472, 
Spence  v.  Board,  117  Ind.  573, 
Spence  v.   Eastern,   etc.,   Co.,   7 

Dowl.  697, 
Spence  v.  Mitchell,  9  Ala.  744, 
Spence  v.  Scott,  97  Cal.  181,  S.  C 

31  Pac.  R.  939, 
Spence  v.  Simmons,  16  Ala.  828, 
Spence  v.  Smith,  18  N.  H.  587, 
Spence  v.  Tuggle,  10  Ala.  538, 
Spenceley  v.  De  Willott,  7   East 

108,  781 

Spencer's  Estate,  In  re,   96  Cal. 

448,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  453,  1081 

Spencer  v.  Curtis,  57  Ind.  221, 

^  163,  592 

Spencer  v.  Deagle,  34  Mo.  455,       465 
Spencer  v.  Jennings,  114  Pa.  St. 

618,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  2, 
Spencer  v.  Levering,  8  Minn.  461, 

112, 
Spencer  v.  Morgan,  5  Ind.  146, 
Spencer  v.  Robbins,  106  Ind.  580, 

781,  804,  1131 
Spencer  v.  School  District,  11  R. 

I.  537,  472 

Spencer  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  79 

Mo.  500,  1227 

Spencer  v.  Storrs,  38  Vt.  156,  395 

Spencer  v.  Thistle,  13  Neb.  227,  1165 
Spencer  v.  Williams,  160  Mass. 

,  S.  C.  35  N.  E.  R.  88,  1094 

Spencer  Greek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Val- 

lejo,  48  Cal.  70, 
Spengler   v.    Kaufman,    43    Mo. 

App.  5, 
Spensley  v.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co., 

54  Wis.  433,  1042 

Sperry  v.  Dickinson,  82  Ind.  132,  1161 
Sperry  v.  .lohnson,  11  Ohio  452,  389 
Spicer  v.  Hoop,  51  Ind.  365,  481,  489 
Spicer  v.  United  States,  5  Ct.  of 

CI.  34,  1179 

Spickerman  v.  McChesney,  111  N. 

Y.  686,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  266,       111 
Spies  V.  People,  122  111.  1,  S.  C.  3 
Am.  St.  R.  320.  S.  C.  12  N.  E. 
R.  865,  545,  657,  661,  668 


262 

201 
362 


118 
112 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Spies  V.  People,  123  U.  S.  131,  S. 

C.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  22,  661,  784 

Spiers   v.    Halstead,    71   N.    Car. 

209,  446 

Spinning  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Dis- 
ney (O.)  336,  196 
Splahn  V.  Gillespie,  48  Ind.  397,     455 
Spohn  V.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 
116  Mo.  617,  S.  C.  22  S.  W.  R. 
690,  800 
Spooner  v.  Handley,   151  Mass. 
312,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  840, 

1078,  1218 
Spoor  V.   Holland,  8  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  445,  435 

Spoors  V.  Coen,  44  Ohio  St.  497,  S. 

C.  9  N.  E.  R.  132,  243,  246 

Spradling  v.  State,  17  Ala.  440,  235 
Sprague  v.  Birchard,  1  Wis.  457,  423 
Sprague  v.  Child,  16  Ohio  St.  107,  ;il61 
Sprague   v.    Heaps,   7    111.    App. 

447  623 

Sprague  v.  Pritchard,    108    Ind. 

491,  1130,  1212 

Sprague  v.  Sprague,  7  J.  J.  Marsh. 

(Ky.)  331,  603 

Sprigg  V.  Stump,  8  Fed.  R.  207,  183 
Spring    V.     S.    Car.     Ins.    Co.,  6 

Wheat.  519,  255 

Springer  v.  Mendenhall,  3  Harr. 

(Del.)  381,  619 

Springer  v.   Peterson,   1  Blackf. 

188,  1242 

Springer  v.  United  States,  102  U. 

S.  586,  424 

Springfield  v.  Dalbey,  139111. 134, 
S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  860, 

180,  790,  791,  814 
Springfield  v.  State  (Ala,),  11  So. 

R.  250,  516 

Springfield    City   R.   Co.  v.     De 

Camp,  11  Brad.  (111.)  475,  71 

Springfield,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.v. White, 

(Ariz.)  29  Pac.  R.  1006,  1163 

Springfield  F.  &  M.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Brown,  128  Pa.  St.  392,  S.  C.  18 
Atl.  R.  396,  555 

Springfield  &  M.   R.   R.   Co.   v. 

Rhea,  44  Ark.  258,  679 

Si)ring  Garden,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Evans,  9  Md.  1,  557 

Springport  v.  Teutonia  Bank,  84 

N.  Y.  403,  134 

Springs  v.  Erwin,  6  Ired.  L.  27,       335 
Sprinkle  v.  Tavlor,  1  Ind.  App. 

74,  548 

Sprouce  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Va. 

Cas.  375,  662 

Sproull's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  137       201 
Sproull  V.  Seay,  76  Ga.  27,  554 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxliii 


[Eefere7ices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Sprowl  V.  Lawrence,  33  Ala.  674,     311 
Spurck  V.  Crook,  1!»  111.  415,  002 

Squires  v.  C'liillicothe,  Si)  Mo.  226, 

S.  V.  1  S.  \V.  K.  23,        636,  637,  641 
St.  Albans  v.  Bush,  4  Vt.  58,  S.  C. 

23  Am.  Dec.  246,  128,  606 

St.  Amand    v.   Gerry,  2   Nott.  & 

McC.  486,  248 

St.  Clair  v.  Caldwell,  72  Ala.  527, 

1121 
St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  350  S. 

C.  1  Sup.  Ct.  R.  354,       280,  428,  442 
St.  Clair  v.   Missouri  Pacific  Rv. 

Co.,  20  Mo.  Aj)p.  76,  1118, 1120 

St.  James  Church  v.  Arrington,  36 

Ala.  546,  487 

St.  John  V.  Coates,  63  Hun  460,  364 
St.  Johnsbury  v.  Thompson,59  Vt. 

300,  1050 

St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hunt, 

59  Vt.  294,  "S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  277,     1178 
St.  Joseph  V.  Farrell,  106  Mo.  437, 

S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  497,  170 

St.  Joseph  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Daggett, 

84  111.  556,  498 

St.  Louis  V.  Clemens,  36  Mo.  467,  1197 
St.  Louis  V.  Knapp,  104  U.  S.  658,  488 
St.  Louis  V.  Goebel,  32  Mo.  295,  437 
St.  Louis  V.  Meyer,  13  Mo.  App. 

367,  533 

St.  Louis  V.   Regenfuss,   28  Wis. 

144,  475 

St.  Louis  V.  Shields,  62  Mo.  247,  144 
St.  Louis  V.  St.  Louis  Gas  Co.,  70 

Mo.  69,  587 

St.  Louis  V.  State,  8  Neb.  405,  657 

St.  Louisv.  West.  Union,  etc.,  Co., 

148  U.  S.  92,  1136 

St.  Louis,  Citv  of,  v.  Missouri  Pac. 

Ry.  Co.,  114  Mo.  13,  S.  C.  21  S. 

W.  R.  202,  1026 

St.  Louis  Brokerage  Co.  v.  Bag- 

nell,  76  Mo.  554,  112 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chapman, 

38  Kan.  307,  503 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cohen,  9 

Mo.  421,  471 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Deweese,  23 

Fed.  691,  1210 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Godby,  45 

Ark.  485,  1235 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hendricks, 

48  Ark.  177,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R. 

220,  712,  1130,  1215 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hanson,  58 

Fed.  R.  531,  1206 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Henson,  58 

Fed.  712,  

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  35 

Ark.  622,  369 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
St.   Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern 

Ex.  Co.,  108  U.  S.  24,         1179,  1187 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.   v.  Stillwater 

St.  Rv.  Co.    (Minn.),  54  N.  W. 

R.  1064,  607,  612 

St.  Louis,  Alton  <k  T.  II.  R.  R.  Co. 

V.  Dorse V,  47  111.  288,  441 

St.  Louis,  A.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v.  Whit- 
ley, .77  Tex.  126,  613,  614 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Biggs, 

52  Ark.  240,  S.  'C.  20  Am.  St.  R. 

174,  370 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fow- 
ler, 113  Mo.  458,  S.  C.  20  S.  W. 

R.  1069,  626,  628,  633,  636 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lux, 

63  111.  523,  666 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor 

(Ark.),  20S.  AV.  R.  1083,  675 

St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock  Yards  v. Wig- 
gins Ferrv  Co. ,  102  111 .  514,    526,  539 
St.  Louis  &■  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 

Bride,  141  U.  S.  127,  S.  C.  11  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  982,  313,  607,  609 

St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Tra- 

week,84Tex.65,S.C.19S.W.  R 

370,  603,  611 

St.   Louis  &  S.  F.   R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Weaver,  35  Kan.  412,  S.  C.  57 

Am.  R.  176,  797 

St.  Martin  v.  Desnoyer,  1  Minn. 

41,  1120 

St.   Paul,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Brown,  9 

Minn.  157,  403 

St.  Paul  Plow  Works  v.  Starling, 

140  U.  S.  184,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct. 

R  80S  704 

Stabler  v.  Grund,  35  Neb.  658,  S. 

C.  53  N.  W.  R.  570,  1133 

Stacer  v.  Hogan,  120  Ind.  207,       1158 
Stackhouse  v.  Halsev,  3  Johns. 

Ch.  73,  '  450 

Stackhouse  v.  Zuntz,  36  La.  Ann. 

529,  221 

Stadler  v.  Grieben,  61  Wis.  500,      370 
Stadler  v.  Hertz,  13  Lea  (Tenn.) 

315,  173 

Stafford  v.  Bacon,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

532,  S.  C.  37  Am.  Dec.  366,  567 

Stafford  v.  Nutt,  51  Ind.  535,  1194 

Stagg  V.  State,  3  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

372,  161 

Stagner  V.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  440,     662 
Stahl  V.  Berger,  lOSerg.  &  R.(Pa.) 

170.  S.  C.  13  Am.  Dec.  666,  532 

Stahl  V.  Webster,  11  111.  511,  185 

Stair  V.  Richardson,  108  Ind.  429,    1230 
Stalker  v.  Gaunt,  12   N.  Y.  Leg. 

Obs.  124,  506 

Stamper  v.Griffin,  12Ga.450,     801,  807 


ccxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
Stamphill  v.  Franklin  County,  86 

Ala.  392,  609 

Stanaford  V.  Parker  (Ky.),  15  S. 

W.  R.  584,  1239 

Standard,  etc., Co.  v.  Friedenthall, 
1  Col.  App.  5,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R. 
88,  ^  1132 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Bretz,  98  Ind. 

231,  1160 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.Van  Etten,  107 

U.  S.  325,  801 

Staniford  v.  Barry,  1  Aik.  314,        117 
Stanley  v.  Bank,  23  Ala.  652,  557 

Stanley  v.  Barker,  25  Vt.  507,  336 

Stanley  v.  Hollidav,  130  Ind.  464, 

30  N.  E.  R.  634,  529 

Stanley  v.  Stanley,  47  Ohio  St.  225, 

S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  806,  381 

Stanley  v.  State,  24  Ohio  St.  166, 

S.  C.  15  Am.  R.  604,  309 

Stanley  v.  Sutherland,  54  Ind.  339, 

463,  1060,  1124 
Stanly  v.  Morse,  26  la.  454,  263 

Stanton  v.  Bannister,  2  Vt.  464,     1063 
Stanton  v.  Henry,  11  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  133,  595 

Stanton  V.  Parker,  5  Rob.  (La.), 

198,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  528,  805 

Stanton  Co.  v.  Canfield,  10  Neb. 

389,  S.  C.  6  N.  W.  R.  466,  712 

Staple  V.  Heydon,  6  Mod.  1,  1156 

Staples  V.  Fairchild,  3  N.  Y.  41, 

165,  465 
Staples  V.  Goodrich,  21  Barb.  317,  1177 
Staples  V.  Staples,  4  Greenl.  532,  197 
Stapp  V.  Davis,  78  Ind.  128, 

1194    1199 
Starbird  v.  Moore,  21  Vt.  529,     '    293 
Starbuck  v.  Murray,  5  Wend.  148, 
S.  C.  21  Am.  Dec.  172, 

266,  326,  606 
Stark  V.  Billings,  15  Fla.  318,  182 

Stark  V.  Cannady,  3  Litt.  (Ky.) 

399,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  76,  584 

Stark  V.  Lancaster,  57  N.  H.88,       534 
Stark  V.  Ratcliff,  111  111.  75,  262 

Starkey  v.  DeGraff,  22  Minn.  431,     408 
Starkie  v.  Richmond,    155  Mass. 

188,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  770,  201 

Starks  v.  People,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.) 

106,  806,  807 

Starkweather  v.  Johnson,  66  Wis. 

469,  638 

Starnes  v.  Schofield,  5  Ind.  App. 

4,  S.  C.  31N.  E.  R.  480,         675,677 
Starns  v.    Hadnot,   42  La.   Ann. 

366,  327 

Starr  v.  United  States,  14  Sup.  Ct. 

R.  919,  1066,  1072 

Starry  v.  Winning,  7  Ind.  311,        640 


1-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.-] 
Startup  V.   Macdonald,    6    Man. 

&  G.  593,  401,  553 

Staser  v.  Hogan,  120  Ind.  207,  S. 
C.  21  N.  E.  R.  911, 
237,  519,  1095,  1098,  1130, 1164,  1239 
State  V.  Abbott,  41  La.  Ann.  1096, 

S.  C.  6  So. R.  805,  170 

State  V.  Abrams,  11  Ore.  169,  823 

State  V.  Acker,  52  N.  J.  L.  259,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  258,  182 

State  V.  Adams,  4  Blackf.  146,        308 
State  V.  Adams,  20  Kan.  311,  815 

State  V.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570,  117 

State  V.  Adamson,  43  Minn.  196,  798 
State  V.  Ah  Chuey,  14  Nev.  79,  S. 

C.  33  Am.  R.  530,  809 

State  V.  Ah  Lee,  8  Ore.  214,  815 

State  V.  Alford,  31  Conn.  40,  1168 

State  V.  Ailing,  12  Ohio  16,  145 

State  V.  Anderson,  30  La.    Ann. 

557,  537 

State  V.  Anderson,  24  S.  Car.  109,  1122 
State  V.  Angel,  7  Ired.  L.  (N.  Car.) 

27  1071 

State  V.  Anone,  2  Nott  &  M.  27,  144 
State  V.  Anthony,  7  Ired.  L.  (N. 

Car.)  234,  656 

State  V.  Archer,  48  la.  310,  522 

State  V.  Armington,  25  Minn.  29,  287 
State  V.   Armstrong,   3    Sneed 

(Tenn.)  634,  170 

State  V.  Arnold,  12  la.  479,  663 

State  V.  Austin,  108  N.  Car.  780,  1111 
State  V.  Averv.  113  Mo.  475,  S.  C. 

21  S.  W.  R.'  193,  1169 

State  V.  Babb,  76  Mo.  501,  541 

State  V.  Bacon,  107  Mo.  627,  S.  C. 

18  S.  W.  R.  19,  230 

State  V.  Bacon,  98  Am.  Dec.  616,  738 
State  V.  Bailey,  94  Mo.  311,  S.  C. 

7  S.  W.  R.  425,  623 

State  V.  Baird,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  194,  290 
State  V.  Baker,  63  N.  Car.  276,  640 
State  v.Baker(Ia.)  ,56  N.W.R.425,  915 
State  V.  Baker  (Mo.),  19  S.  W.  R. 

222,  1069 

State  V.  Baldwin,  10  Biss.  C.  C. 

165,  466 

State  V.  Baldwin,  80  N.  Car.  390,  656 
State  V.  Banister,  35  So.  Car.  290, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  678,  524,  800 

State  V.  Banks,  40  La.  Ann.  736,  S. 

C.  5  So.  R.  18,  915 

State  V.  Bannock  (Minn.),  55  N. 

W.  R.  558,  644 

State  V.  Barbour,  53  Conn.  76,  203 
State  V.  Barker,  43  Kan.  262,  S.  C. 

23  Pac.  Rep.  575,  714 

State  V.  Barrels  of  Liquor,  47  N. 
H.  369,  278 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlv 


l^Iieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Barrett,  40  Minn,  (io,  S. 

C.  41  N.  W.  K.  459, 

1G4,  177,  799,  804 
State  V.  Barrett,  42  N.  II.  46G,  1171 
State  V.  Bartlett,  11  Vt.  (ioO,  308 

State  V.  Burtlett,  55  Me.  L'OO,  32 

State  V.  Bartley,  48  Kan.  421,   S. 

C.  29  Pac.  R.  701,  623 

State  V.  Bartun,  8  Mo.  App.  15,         627 
State  V.  Beal,  68  Ind.  345,  798 

State  V.  Beallie,  38  La.  Ann.  452,    230 
State  V.  Beattv,  45  Kan.  492,  S.  C. 

25  Pac.  K.  899,  660 

State  V.  Beeui,   3   Blackf.   (Ind.) 


State  V.  Bell,  5  Port.  (Ala.)  365, 
State  V.  Bell,  70  Mo.  633, 
State  V.  Benjamin,  7  La.  Ann.  47, 
State  V.  Benner,  64  Me.  267, 
State  V.  Bennett,  75  Me.  590, 


1113 

337 

1073 

522 

796, 799 

1232 


State  V. 
State  V. 


State  V. 
State  V. 
State  V. 
State  V. 
317, 


State  V.  Burdetta,  73  Ind.  185,  369, 560 
State  V.  Berkley,  92  Mo.  41,  624 

State  V.  Berlin,'  24  La.  Ann.  46,  815 
State  V.  Billings,  77  la.  417,  627,  640 
State  V.  Bishop,  73  N.  C.  44,  33 

State  V.  Bliss,  21  Minn.  458,  183 

State  V.  Bloom,  17  Wis.  521,  214,  217 
State  V.  Blossom,  19  Nev.  312,  216 
State  V.  Board,  m  Ind.  216,  1139 

Board,  101  Ind.  69,  134 

Boardman,  64  3Ie.  523,       153 
State  V .  Bogai  n ,  1 2  La .  A  n  n .  264 ,     1112 
State  V.  Bohan,  19  Kan.  28,     150,  1071 
Boles,  18  So.  Car.  534,       1054 
Bonnev,  34  Me.  223,  248 

Boone."  30  Ind.  225,  121 

Boone  County  Ct.,  50  Mo. 

123,  170 
State  V.  Borabaeher,  19  la.  154,  807 
State  V.   Boswell,  2  Dev.  L.   R. 

209,  802 

State  V.  Bowden,  71  Me.  89,  665 

State  V.  Bovd,  38  La.  Ann.  374,       807 
State  V.  Bradv,  107  N.  Car.  822, 
•     S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  325,  666 

State  V.  Branstetter,  65  Mo.  149,  1119 
State  V.  Brant,  14  la.  180,  798,  806 
State  V.  Brantley,  (53  N.  Car.  518,  1171 
State  V.  Braswe'll,  82  N.  Car.  693,  824 
State  V.  Breanx,  32  La.  Ann.  222,  667 
State  V.  Breeden,  58  Mo.  507,  802 

State  V.  Brennan  (S.  Dak.),  50  N. 

W.  R.  625,  1075 

State  V.  Brette,  6  La.  Ann.  652,  624 
State   V.    Brookover,   22   W.   Va. 

214  338 

State'v.  Brooks.  4  Wash.  328,  S. 

C  30  Pac.  R.  147.  623 

State  V.  Brooks,  92  Mo.  542,  1167 

State  V.  Brookshire,  2  Ala.  303,       179       I'ii 


002,  V(A.  II,  pp.  603-J244.] 

State  V.  Brown,  15  Kau.  400,  G66 

State  V.  Brown   (Li.),  53  N.   W. 

R.  92,  736 

State  V.  Brown,  .35  Kan.  167,  213 

State  V.  Brown,  2  Ore.  221,  308 

State  V.  Brown,  12  Minn.  490,    143,  544 
State  V.  Bruce,  24  Me.  71,  804 

State  V.  Bryan,  40  la.  379,  665 

State  V.  BrVan,  89  N.  Car.  531,       1171 
State  V.  Burks,  82  Te.x.  584,  S.  C. 

18  S.  W.  R.  662,  224 

State  V.  Burns,  85  Mo.  47,  657 

State  V.  Burns,  66  Mo.  227,  1203 

State  V.  Cadwell,  79  la.  473,  S.  C. 

44  N.  W.  R.  711,  630 

State  V.  Cahen,  28  La.  Ann.  645,     251 
State  V.  Cape  Girardeau,  etc.,  73 

Mo.  560,  178 

State  V.  Cardelli,  19  Nev.  319,  S.  C. 

10  Pac.  R.  433,  551 

State  V.  Carr,  5  N.  H.  367,  143 

State  V.  Carroll,  38  Conn.  449,  S. 

C.  9  Am.  R.  409,      143,  144,  214,  216 
State  V.  Carter,  3  Dutch.  499,  307 

State  V.  Cartright,  20  W.  Va.  32,    1124 
State  V.  Carver,  49  Me.  588,  S.  C. 

77  Am.  Dec.  275,  1170 

State  V.  Castle,  44  Wis.  670,  154 

State  V.  Castleberry,  23  Ala.  85, 

217,  630 
State  V.  Caudle,  63  N.  Car.  30,  1209 
State  v.CauUield,  23  La.  Ann.  148,  660 
State  V.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Nev. 

259,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  887,  1217 

State  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

10  Nev.  47,  271 

State   v.  Chambers,  45   La.  Ann. 

36,  S.  C.  11  So.  R.  944,  632 

State  V.  Chandler,  3  Hawks  393,     307 
State  V.   Chantlain,  42  La.  Ann. 

718,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  669,  230 

State  V.  Chapman,  1  S.  Dak.  414, 

S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  432,  S.  C.  47 

N.  W.  R.  411,  224,663 

State  V.  Chapman,  6  Nev.  320,        667 
State  V.  Chase,  41  Ind.  356,  492 

State  V.  Chee  Gong,  17  Ore.  635, 

S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  882,  541,  781 

State  V.  Cherry,  63  N.  Car.  493, 

798  806 
State  V.  Choute,  11  Ohio  511,  '  235 
State  V.  City  of  Newark,  48  N.  J. 

L.  101.  163 

State  V.  Clark,  18  Mo.  432,  192 

State  V.  Clark,  33  La.  Ann.  422,      2-55 
State  V.  Clark,  42  Vt.  629,  660 

State  V.  Clark,  .30  la.  I(i8,  153 

State  V.  Cleary,  40  Kan.  287,  800 

State  V.  Clinton,  67  Mo.  380,  S.  C. 


Am.  R.506, 


798,  802 


ccxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Coella.  3  Wash.  99,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  Kep.  28,  658,  660 

State  V.  Cohen,   13  S.   Car.  198, 

454,  614 
State  V.  Cole,  94  N.  Car.  958,  740 

State  V.  Coleman,  8  S.  Car.  237,  662 
State  V.  Coleman,  20  S.  Car.  441,  667 
State  V.  Collins,  70  N.  Car.  241, 

S.  C.  16  Am.  K.  771,  660,  819 

State  V.  Collins,  72  N.  Car.  144,  178 
State  V.  Collins,  5  Wis.  339,  224 

State  V.    Commercial  Bank,  6  S. 

&  M.   218,  S.   C.  45  Am.  Dec. 

280,  1172 

State  V.  Compton,  77  Wis.  460,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  535,  637,  638 

State  V.  Comstock,  20  Kan.  650,  821 
State  V.  Connell,  49  Mo.  282,  1170 

State  V.  Conoly,  6  Ired.  243,  158 

State  V.  Cooper,  45  Mo.  64.  1061 

State  V.  County  Court  of  Boone, 

50  Mo.  317,  121 

State    V.    County  Court  of  New 

Madrid,  51  Mo.  82,  121 

State  V.Covington,  45  La  Ann.  — ,  S. 

C.  13  So.  R.  266,  660 

State  V.  Cowan,  7  Ired.  L.  (N.  C.) 

239  910,  1224,  1232 

State  V.  Craig,  80  Me.  85,  S.  C.  13 

Atl.  R.  129,  220 

State  V.  Crane,  36  N.  J.L.  394,  136,  224 
State  V.  Crane,  110  N.  Car.  530,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E.  R.  231,  797 

State  V.  Crawford,  28  Kan.  726,  482 
State  V.  Crevier,  50  N.  J.  L.  351,  305 
State  V.  Crittenden,  38  La.  Ann. 

448,  780 

State  V.  Crow,  107  Mo.  341,  S.  C. 

17  S.  W.  R.  745,  809 

State  V.  Cummings,  36  Mo.  263,  176 
State  V.  Cummins,  76  la.  133,  S. 

C.  40  N.  W.  R.  124,  720 

State  V.  Curtis,  9  Nev.  325,  216 

State  v.  Danforth,  48  la.  43,  S.  C. 

30  Am.  R.  387,  808 

State  V.  Daniels,  66  Mo.  192,  123 

State  V.  Danser,  3  Zabr.  (N.  J.) 

552,  258 

State  v.  Darling,  4  Nev.  413,  1134 

State  V.  Davenport,  38  S.  Car.  348, 

S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  37,  1074 

State  V.  Davis,  48  Kan.  1,  695 

State  V.  Davis,  29  Mo.  391,  660 

State  V.  Davis,  41  la.  311,  666 

State  V.  Davis,  73  Ind.  359,  434 

State  V.  Davis,  14  Nev.  439,  663 

State  v.  Dean,  40  Mo.  465,  532, 533 
State  v.  Degonia,  69  Mo.  485,  652 

State  V.  DeMosse,  98  Mo.  340,  S. 
C.  11  S.  W.  R.  731,  1061 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
State  V.  Denis,  19  La.  Ann.  119,      790 
State  V.  Dennin,  32  Vt.  158,  807 

State  V.  Denny,  118  Ind.  382,  136, 137 
State  V.  Dent,  41   La.  Ann.  1082, 

S.  C.  7  So.  R.  694,  630 

State  V.  Denton,  6  Cold.  (Tenn.) 

539,  308 

State  V.  Depositor,  21  Neb.  107,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  1000,  1111 

State  V.  De  Wolf,  8  Conn.  93,  741  . 

State  V.  Dickson,  6  Kan.  209,  667 

State  V.  Dietz,  67  la.  220,  1074 

State  V.  Dillon,  96  Mo.  56,  S.  C.  8 

S.  W.  R.  781,:  492 

State  V.  Dixon,  75  N.  Car.  275,  1071 
State  V.  Drew,  17  Fla.  67,  170 

State  V.  Dougherty,  70  la.  439,  185 
State  V.  Douglass,  50  Mo.  593,  216 
State  V.  Dove,  10  Ired.  L.(N.Car.) 

469,  667 

State  V.  Downs,  91  Mo.  19,  S.  C.  3 

S.  W.  R.  219,  799 

State  V.  Doyle,  40  Wis.  175,  212 

State  V.  Doyle,  11  R.  I.  574,  1171 

State  V.  Duckworth,  85  la.  708,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.  R.  549,  1229 

State  V.  Duffel,  41  La.  Ann.  958, 

253,  492 
State  V.  Duffv,  39  La.  Ann.  419,  S. 

C.  2  So.  Rep.  184,  621 

State  V.  Dufour,  63  Ind.  567,  640 

State  V.  Dumphey,  4  Minn.  438,  1124 
State  V.  Duncan,  116  Mo.  288,  S. 

C.22S.W.Rep.699,  750,1169,1219 
State  V.  Dunlop,  65  N.  Car.  288,  1067 
State  V.  Durein.  29  Kan.  688,  S.  C. 

27     Pac.  R.  148,  1129 

State  V.  Dusenberry,  112  Mo.  277, 

S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  461,  619 

State  V.  Earl,  133  Ind.  389,  S.  C. 

32  N.  E.  R.  1126,  181 
State  V.  Eckler,  106  Mo.  585,  S.  C. 

17  S.  W.  R.  814,  541 

State  V.  Edwards,  2  Nott  &  McC. 

13,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  557,  781 

State  V.  Edwards,  HON.  Car.  511, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  741,  172 

State  V.  Efler,  85  N.  Car.  585,  798 

State  V.  Eighth  Dist.  Judge,  35  La. 

Ann.  248,  1242 

State  V.  Elwood,  17  R.  I.  763,  S. 

C.  24  Atl.  R.  782,  811 

State  V.  Ellington,  7  Ired.  (N. Car.) 

61,  660,  662 

State  V.  Elliott  (Ohio  Com.  PL), 

25  Weekly  Law  Bull.  366,  627 

State  V.  Elliott,  45  la.  486,  666 

State  V.  Ellivin,  51  Kan.  784,  S.  C. 

33  Pac  R  547,  619 
State  V.  Ely,  11  Ind.  313,                1182 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


ccxlvii 


[Jie/eretices  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Erinis,  74  Ind.  17,  434  I 

State  V.  Ensley,  10  la.  149,  173 

State  V.  Euzebe,  42  La.  Ann.  727, 

S.  C.  7  So.  R.  784,  153 

State  V.  Ezell,  41  Tex.  35,  789 

State  V.  Falconer  (Ark.),  5  S.  W. 

R.  193,  1188 

State  V.  Farmer,  84  Me.  436,  S.  C. 

24  Atl.  Rep.  985,  798 

State  V.  Ferguson,  31  N.  J.  L.  283,  423 
State  V.  Field,  37  Mo.  App.  83,  1242 
State  V.  Fisher,  33  L.  Ann.  1344.  1159 
State  V.  Fitzsiniinons,  30  Mo.  236,  179 
State  V.  Flack,  48  Kan.  146,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  571,  655,  697 

State  V.  Fleak,  54  la.  429,  287 

State  V.  Fleming,  11  Ind.  234,  653 

State  V.  Flemons,  6  Ind.  279,  1228 

State  V.  Fletcher  (Ore.),  33  Pac. 

R   575  812 

State  V.  Fon  du  Lac,  42  Wis.  287,  424 
State  V.  Ford,  37  La.  Ann.  443,  627 
State  V.  Foster,  115  Mo.  448,  S.  C. 

22  S.  W.  R.  468,  1168 

State  V.  Francis,  76  Mo.  681,  646 

State  V.    French,  2   Pin.    (Wis.) 

181,  202 

State  V.  Fritz,  27  La.  Ann.  689,  226, 230 
State  V.  Friige,  44  La.  Ann.  165,  807 
State  V.  Fiinck,  17  la.  365,  1155 

State  V.  Furlong,  60  Miss.  839,  367 
State  V.  Gamble,  108  Mo.  500,  S. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  1111,  228,  232 

State  v.Ganna\vay,16  Lea  (Tenn.) 


124, 


118 
804 
809 
1171 
919 


State  V.  Garland,  95  N.  Car.  671, 
State  V.  Garrett,  71  N.  Car.  85, 
State  V,  Gates,  9  La.  Ann.  94, 
State  V.  Gates,  20  Mo.  400, 
State  V.  George,  8  Ired.  L.  324,  S. 

C.  49  Am.  Dec.  393,  1170 

State  V.  Gibbs,  10  Mont.  213,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  A.  749,  624 

State  V.  Gill.  14  So.  Car.  410,  666 

State  V.  Gihuore.  110  Mo.  1,  S.  C. 

19  S.  W.  R.  218.  228,  229 

State  V.  Glave,  51  Kan.  330,  S.  C. 

33  Pac.  Rep.  8,  820 

State  V.  Gleason,  12  Fla.  190,  215 

State  V.  Glidden,  55  Conn.  46,  483 
State  V.  Glisson,  93  N.  Car.  506,  799 
State  V.  Godfrey.  Brayt.  (Vt.),  650 
State  V.  Goodwin,  5  Ired.  (N.  C.) 

401.  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  42,    181,  1223 
State  V.  Goold,  62  Me.  509,  540 

State  V.  Gorley.  2  la.  52,  1199 

State  V.  Governor,  5  Ohio  St.  528,  170 
State  V.  Governor.  25  N.J.  L.  331, 

170,  251 
State  V.  Graham,  74  N.  Car.  646,      809 


1-fJO-J,   Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.] 
State  V.  (irant,  79  Mo.  113,  806 

State  V.  Gray,  37  N.  J.  L.  368,  342 
State  V.  (iray,  19  Nev.  212,  667 

State  V.  Green,  43  La.  Ann.  402,  S. 

C.  9  So.  R.  42,  6«56 

State  V.  Green,  95  N.  Car.  611,  662 
State  V.  Greenwade.  72  Mo.  298,  233 
State  V.  Greer,  22  W.  Va.  800, 

626,  627 
State  V.  Gregory,  33  La.  Ann.  737, 

697,  789 
State  V.  Gregory,  132  Ind.  387,  S. 

C.  31  N.  E.  R.  952,  1080 

State  V.  Groome,  10  la.  308,  665 

State  V.  Grittin,  87  Mo.  608,  821 

State  V.  Grizzard,  89  N.  Car.  115,  1123 
State  V.  Gurnee,  14  Kan.  Ill,  595 

State  V.  Gut,  13  Minn.  341,  6.52 

State  V.  Haines,  36  So.  Car.  504, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  555,  6&5 

State  V.  Hall,  45  Mo.  App.  298,  554 
State  V.  Hall,  26  W.  Va.  236,  1169 
State  V.  Hamill.  6  La.  Ann.  257,  255 
State  V.  Hamilton,  27   La.  Ann. 

400,  662 

State  V.  Hamilton,  55  Mo.  520,  819 
State  V.   Hamilton,  42  La.    Ann. 

1204,  741 

State  V.  Hammett,  7  Ark.  492,  163 
State   V.   Hampton,  33   La.  Ann. 

1252,  801 

State  V.  Hardin,  46  la.  623,  798 

State  V.  Harkins,  100  Mo.  666,  S. 

C.  13  S.  W.  R.  830,  153 

State  V.  Harmon,  31  Ohio  St.  250,  204 
State   V.    Harmon,    106   Mo.  635, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  128,  1114 

State  V.  Harr,  38  W.  Va.  58,  S.  C. 

17  S.  E.  R.  794,  1226 

State  V.  Harrington,  12  Nev.  125, 

1068 
State  V.Harris,  39  La.  Ann.  228,  1239 
State  V.  Harrison,  5  Jones  (N.  Car.) 

115,  1067 

State  V.  Harrison,  36  W.  Va.  729, 

S.  C.  18  L.  R.  A.  224,  618,  623 

State  V.  Harrison,  113  Ind.  434,  203 
State  V.  Hart,  67  la.  142,  S.  C.  25 

N.  W.  R.  99,  803 

State  V.  Hatch,  91  Mo.  568,  S.  C. 

4  S.  W.  R.  502,  307 

State  V.  Hawes.  43  Ohio  St.  16,  1242 
State  V.  Hawkins.  91  Tenn.  140, 

S.  C.  IS  S.  W.  R.  114.  1239 

State  V.  Haworth.  122  Ind.  462,  120 
State  V.  Haws,  98  :\Io.  188,  S.  C. 

IIS.W.  R.574,  638 

State  V.  Haves.  59  N.  H.  450,  535,  536 
State  V.  Helfrid,  2  Nott  &  McC. 

233,  119 


ccxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Heferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Hendricks.  32  Kan.  559,     807 
State  V.  Hinchman,  27  Pa.  St.  479,     317 
State  V.  Hing,  16  Nev.  307,  657 

State  V.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  178,  S. 

C.  81  Am.  Dec.  503,  121,  171 

State  V.  Hobbs,  117  Mo.  620,  S.  C. 

23  S.  W.  R.  1074,  914 

State  V.  Hockett,  29  Ind.  302,  121 

State  V.  Holmes,  56  la.  588,  150 

State  V.  Holt,  90  N.  C.  749,  S.  C. 

47  Am.  R.  544.  644 

State  V.  Hood,  6  Blackf .  260,  434 

State  V.  Hosmer,  85  Mo.  553, 

234,  640 
State  V.  Houser,  28  Mo.  233,  639 

State  V.  Houston,  35  La.  Ann.  236,  255 
State  V.  Howard,  9  N.  H.  485,  805 

State  V.  Howard,  31  Vt.  414,  307 

State  V.  Howard  (Mo.),  24  S.  W. 

R.  41,  741 

State  V.  Howard,  35  S.  Car.  197, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  481,  179 

State  V.  Howe,  64  Ind.  18,  1048 

State  V.  Hoyt,  47  Conn.  518,  S.  C. 

36  Am.  R.  89,        660,  666,  819,  1112 
State  V.  Hoyt,  13  Minn.  132,  801 

State  V.  Hoxsie,  15  R.  I.  1,  S.  C. 

22  Atl.  R.  10.59,  655,  1065 

State  V.  Huff,  76  la.  200,  S.  C.  40 
i    N.  W.  Rep.  720,  541 

State  V.  Huff,  11  Nev.  17,  798 

'State  V.  Huffman,  16  Ore.  15,  S. 

C.  16  Pac.  R.  640,  525,  1069 

State  V.  Hull  (R.  I.),  20  L.  R.  A. 

609,  820 

State  V.  Hunsaker,  16  Ore.  497,  800 
State  V.  Hyde,  121  Ind.  20,  204 

State  V.  Ihrig,  106  Mo.  267,  S.  C. 

17  S.  W.  R.  300,  662 

State  V.  Irwin,  5  Nev.  Ill,  203 

State  V.  Jackson,  36  S.  Car.  487, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  559,  1068 

State  V.  Jackson,  27  Kan.  581,  S. 

C.  41  Am.  R.  424,  646 

State  V.  Jacobs,  5  Jones  L.   (N. 

Car.)  2.59,  809 

State  V.  .lames  (S.  Car.),  12  S.  E. 

R.  657,  657,  660,  661 

State  V.  Jefferson,  43  La.   Ann. 

995,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  199,  179 

State  V.  Jefferson,  66  N.  Car.  309,  214 
State  V.  Jenkins,  84  N.  Car.  812, 

S.  C.  .37  Am.  R.  643,  1110 

State  V.  Johnson,  40  Kan.  256,  805 
State  V.  Johnson,  41  La. Ann.  574,  803 
State  V.Johnson,  35  La.  Ann.  871,  801 
State  V.  Johnson,  76  Mo.  121,  821 

State  V.  Johnson,  105  Ind.  463,  212 
State  V.  Jones,  44  La.  Ann.  960,  S. 

C.  11  So.  R.  596,  800 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.^ 
State  V.  Jones,  64  Mo.  391,  656 

State  V.  Jones,  78  Mo.  278,  1074 

State  V.  Jones,  97  N.  Car.  469,  666 
State  V.  Jones,  80  N.  Car.  415,  667 
State  V.  Jordan,  110  N.  Car.  491,  800 
State  V.  Judge,  9  La.  Ann.  62,  230 
State  V.  Judge,  14  La.  Ann.  187,  118 
State  V.  Judge,  21  La.  Ann.  258, 

248,  333 
State  V.  Judge,  33  La.  Ann.  1293,  237 
State  V.  Judge,  38  La.  Ann.  452,  229 
State  V.  Judge,  etc.,  11  La.  Ann. 

66,  159 

State  V.  Jumel,  30  La.  Ann.  421,  183 
State  V.  Justices,  58  Mo.  583,  1188 
State  V.  Justus,  11  Ore.  178,  S.  C. 

50  Am.  R.  470,  812 

State  V.   Kansas  City  Court,  97 

Mo.  331,  S.  C.  10  S.  W.  R.  855,     257 
State  V.  Kansas  Ct.  of  App.,  104 

Mo.  419,  S.  C.  16S.  W.  R.415,     133 
State  V.  Kansas   City  Court,  105 

Mo.  299,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  415,     239 
State  V.  Kaufman,  51  la.  578,  S. 

C.  33  Am.  R.  148,  644 

State     V.    Kellerman,     14     Kan. 

135,  1074 

State  V.  Kelley,  57  N.  H.  549,  797 

State  V.  Kelly,  97  N.  Car.  404,  S. 

C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  299,  696 

State  V.  Kelsoe,  76  Mo.  505,  798 

State  V.  Kennon,  7  Ohio  St.  546,  204 
State  V.  Kepper,  65  la.  745,  30 

State  V.  Ketchey,  70  N.  Car.  621, 

160,  666 
State  V.  Kincaid  (Neb.),  37N.  W. 

R.  612,  1241 


State  V.  King,  5  Ired.  203, 
State  V.  Kingsbury,  58  Me. 


238, 


192 


29. 


660 

801 
308 


State  V.  Kinney,  26  W.  Va.  141, 
State  V.  Kirkpatrick,  32  Ark.  117, 
State  V.  Knadler,  40  Kan.  359, 

S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  923, 
State  V.  Knapp,  45  N.  H.  148, 
State  V.  Knapp,  40  Kan.  148,  S 

S.  19  Pac.  R.  728, 
State  V.  Knight,  43  Me.  11, 
State  V.  Knight,  19  la.  94, 

138,  148,  153 
State  V.  Koener,  51  Mo.  174,  1171 

State  V.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434, 

120,  121,  170,  254,  347, 
State  V.  Kreichbaum,  81  la.  633, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  872, 
State  V.  Kring,  64  Mo.  591, 
State  V.  Lanier,  79  N.  Car.  622, 
State  V.  La  Page,  57  N.  H.  245,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  Rep.  69, 
State  V.  Laughlin,75  Mo.  358, 


635 
739 

307 
667 


492 

308 
820 
803 

955 
178 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlix 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Lautenschlager,  22  Minn. 

514,  542 

State  V.  Lawhorn,  88  N.  Car.  634,  798 
State  V.  Lawlor,  28  Minn.  21(>,  816 
State  V.  Lawrence.  3<S  Mo.  535,  256 
State  V.  Leabo,  8<t  Mo.  247,  657 

State  V.  Leaver,  62  Wis.  387,  S.  C. 

22  N.  W.  K.  576,  1220 

State  V.  Lehman,  2  S.  Dak.  — .  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  3,  1206 

State  V.  Leicht,  17  La.  28,  663 

State  V.  Levy,  5  La.  Ann.  64,  518 

State  V.  Lewis,  44  La.  Ann.  958, 

S.  C.  11  So.  R.  572,  799 

State  V.  Lewis,  20  Nev.  333,  S.  C. 

22  Pac.  R.  241,  714 

State  V.  Lewis,  28  La.  Ann.  84,  667 
State  V.  Lewis,  22  N.  J.  L.  564,  316 
State  V.  Lewis,  107  N.  Car.  967,  S. 

C.  11  L.  R.  A.  105,  214,  226 

State  V.  Lindoen  (la.),  54  N.  W. 

Rep.  1075,  812 

State  V.  Linkhaw,  69  N.  Car.  214, 

S.  C.  12  Am.  R.  645,  811 

State  V.  Litch,  33  Vt.  67,  1171 

Smelzer  v.  Lockhart,  97  Ind.  315,  639 
Statev.Lockwood,5  i31ackf.(Ind.) 

144,  504 

State  V.  Loe,  98  Mo.  609,  624 

State  V.  Loehr,  93  Mo.  103,  798 

State  V.  Lopez,  15  Nev.  407,  815 

State  V.  Lubke,  29  Mo.  App.  555,  633 
State  V.  Ludwie,  70  Mo.  412,  663 

State  V.  Lull,  37  Me.  246,  180 

State  V.  Lusk,  18  Mo.  333,  203 

State  V.  Mc Arthur,  5  Kan.  280,  1185 
State  V.  McArthur,  13  Wis.  407, 

630.  639 
State  V.  McAfee,  64  X.  Car.  339,  663 
State  V.  McCartev,  17  :Minn.  76,  799 
State  V.  McCarthy,  44  La.  Ann. 

323,  S.  C.  10  So."  R.  673,  666 

State  V.  McClear,  1 1  Nev.  39,  643 

State  V.  McCov,  42  La.  Ann.  228, 

S.  C.  7  So.  R.  330,  307 

State  V.  McCurrv,  63  N.  Car.  33,  652 
State  V.  McDonald,  30  :\Iinn.  98,  1242 
State  V.  McDonald,  65  Me.  466,  800 
State  V.  McDonnell,  13  La.  Ann. 

231,  1198 

State  V.  McFarlain,  41  La.  Ann. 

686,  802 

State  V.  McGahev  (N.  Dak.),  55 

N.  W.  R.  753,    '  785 

State  V.  :\IcGlvnn,  20  Cal.  233,  S. 

C.  81  Am.  Dec.  118,  263,  274 

State  V.  McGraw,  87  Mo.  161,  209 

State  V.  :McGuire,  53  la.  165,  150 

State  V.  :McGuire,  15  R.  I.  23,  798 

State  V.  McGuire,  87  Mo.  642,  31 


.  1-(;0L',  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
State  V.  Mclntyre,  53  Me.  214,        201 
State  V.  McKinney,  111   N.  Car. 

683,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  235,  806 

State  V.  McMartin,  42  Minn.  30, 

S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  572,  214 

State  V.  McCormick,  84  Me.  566, 

S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  938,  1115 

State  V.  Mcpherson,  9  la.  53,  308 

State  V.  Mace,  5  Md.  337,  337 

State  V.  Mackev,  12  Ore.  154,  797 

State  V.  :\raher*  74  Li.  77,  S.  C.  37 

N.  W.  R.  2,  177 

State  V.  Majors,  16  Kan.  440,  213 

State  V.  Mallon,  75  Mo.  355,  821 

State  V.  Malonev,  113  Mo.  367,  S. 

C.20S.  W.  R."l064,  149 

State  V.  Mann,  S3  Mo.  589,  178,  662 
State  V.  Manlev,  63  la.  344,  182 

State  V.  Mansfield,  41  Mo.  470,  643 
State  V.  Malone,  37  La.  Ann.  266,  1170 
State  V.  Marler,  2  Ala.  43,  S.  C.  36 

Am.  Dec.  398,  800 

State  V.  :\rarshall,  36  Mo.  400,  1157 
State  V.  Martin,  2  Ired.   (N.  C.) 

101,  139,  629 

State  V.  Martin,  52  Mo.  App.  511,  797 
State  V.  Matlock,  82  Mo.  455,  633 

State  V.  Matthews  37  N.  H.  450,  137 
State  V.  Mayor,  12  Rich.  (S.  C.) 

480,  119 

State  V.  :Meadow8, 18  W.  Va.  658,  803 
State  V.  Melton,  8  Mo.  417,  435 

State  V.  [Nlerrihew,  47  la.  112,  627 

State  V.  Metrassev,  47  Mo.  295,  1124 
State  V.  Mevers,  99  Mo.  107,  1218 

State  V.  Michael,  37  W\  Va.  565, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  803,  524 

State  V.  Miller,  71  Mo.  91,  805 

State  V.  Miller,  11  Mo.  542,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  243,  1075,  1076 

State  V.  ?*Iiller,  23  Wis.  634,  298 

State  V.  Miller.  Ill  Mo. 542,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  243,  235 

State  V.  Miller,  63  Ind.  475,  1183 

State  V.  Miller.  107  Ind.  39,  206 

State  V.  Mills,  91  N.  Car.  581,  646 

State  V.  Millsops.  39  La.  Ann.  793, 

S.  C.  2  So.  R.  595,  236 

State  V.  Milwaukee  Chamber  of 

Commerce,  47  Wis.  670,  628 

State  V.  :Mitchell.  31  Ohio  St.  592,  343 
State  V.  Mix,  15  Mo.  153,  915 

State  V.  :Moncla,  39  La.  Ann.  868, 

S.  C.  2  So.  R.  814,  667 

State  V.  Moore.  26  N.  H.448,  S.C. 

59  Am.  Dec.  354,  309 

State  V.  Moore,  19  Ala.  514,  337 

State  V.  Moonev,  65  Mo.  494,  393 

State  V.  Moonev,  10  la.  506,  627 

State  V.  Morrill",  16  Ark.  384,  137 


ccl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Morris,  67  Me.  428,  803 

State  V.  Moseley,  116  Mo.  545,  S. 

C.  22  S.  W.  K.  804,  1237 

State  V.  MulhoUand,  16  La.  Ann. 

376,  800 

State  V.  Munchrath,  78  la.  268,  S. 

C.  43  N.  W.  R.  211,  668 

State  V.  Murdock,  86  Ind.  124, 

217,  226,  229,  1240 
State  V.  Miirdv,  81  la.  603,  S.  C. 

47  N.  W.  Rep.  867,  623 

State  V.  Murphy,  45  La.  Ann. , 

S.  C.  13  So.  R.  229,  798 

State  V.  Murrell,  33  S.  Car.  83,  S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  682,  1216 

State  V.  Musick,  71  Mo.  401,  255 

State  V.  Neiderer,  94  Mo.  79,  S.  C. 

6  S.  W.  R.  708,  624 

State  V.  Nelson,  26  Ind.  366,  1118 

State  V.  Nelson,  21  Neb.  572,  S.  C. 

32  N.  W.  R.  589,  324 

State  V.  Nelson,  101  Mo.  477,  S.  C. 

10  L.  R.  A.  39,  1157,  1168,  1206 

State  V.  Nelson,  58  la.  208,  657,  806 
State  V.  Newlin,  69  Ind.  108,  1214 

State  V.  New  Madrid,  etc.,  51  Mo. 

82,  171 

State  V,  New  Orleans,  43  La.  Ann. 

829,  S.  C.  9  So.  R.  643,  195,  496 

State  V.  Noble,  118  Ind.  350, 

117,  118,  136,  137,  160,  213 
State  V.  Noland,  29  Ind.  212,  1171 

State  V.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Md. 

193,  337 

State  V.  Nvman,  55  Conn.  17,  S. 

C.  10  Atl.  R.  161,  819 

State  V.  Ober,  52  N.  H.  459,  S.  C. 

13  Am.  R.  88,  820 

State  V.  O' Bryan,  102  Mo.  254,  S. 

C.  14  S.  \V.'  Rep.  933,  626 

State  V.  Oeder,  80  la.  72,  S.  C.  45 

N.  W.  R.  543,  1160 

State  V.  O'Kelley,  88  N.  C.  609,  1240 
State  V.   O'Neal,  7  Ired.   L.  (N. 

Car.)  251,  823 

State  V.  O'Neil  (Kan.),  33  Pac.  R. 

287,  822 

State  V.  Ormiston,  66  la.  143,  1071 
State  v.Ormsby  County ,7  Nev.392,  202 
State  V.  Overton,  24  N.  J.  L.  435, 

545,  546 
State  V.  Palmer,  65  N.  H.  9,  S,  C. 

17  Atl.  R.  977,  543 

State  V.  Parish,  83  Ind.  223,  1081 

State    V.    Parish    Judge,    37  La. 

Ann.  Ill,  1184 

State  V.  Parker,  96  Mo.  382,  7.39 

State  V.  Parkinson.  5  Nev.  15,  202 

State  V.  Patrick,  107  Mo.  147,  S.  C. 

17  S.  W.  R.  666,  1065 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
State  V.  Patterson,  45  Vt.  308,        1077 
State  V.  Pauley,  12  Wis.  537,  308 

State  V.  People,  85  N.  Y.  390,  806 

State  V.  Perkins,  66  N.  Car.  126,  805 
State  V.  Pertsdorf,    33   La.  Ann. 

1411,  217 

State  V.  Peterson,  41  Vt.  504,  643 

State  V.  Petrie,  25  La.  Ann.  386,  652 
State  V.  Petty,  21  Kan.  54,  806,  807 
State  V.  Peyton,  32  Mo.  App.  522,  146 
State  V.  Phillips,  27  La.  Ann.  663,  230 
State  V.  Pierce  (Kan.),  32  Pac.  R. 

924,  486 

State  V.  Pike,  65  Me.  Ill,  1124 

State  V.  Plowman,  28  Kan.  569,  623 
State  V.  Pollard,  14  Mo.  App.  583,  823 
State  V.  Porter,  1  Ala.  688,  144 

State  V.  Posey,  17  La.  Ann.  252,  S. 

C.  87  Am.  Dec.  525,  140,  174 

State  V.  Potts,  78  la.  656,  S.  C.  5 

L.  R.  A.  814,  1068 

State  V.  Powell,  40  La.  Ann.  241,  179 
State  V.  Powers,  10  Ore.  145,  665 

State  V.  Prater,  27  So,  Car.  599,  S. 

C.  2  S.  E.  R.  108,  667 

State  V.  Price,  111  N.  Car.  703,  S. 

C.  16  S.  E.  R.  414,  1072 

State  V.  Primeaux,  39  La.  Ann. 

673,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  423,  621 

State  V.  Pritchard,  15  Nev.  74,  657 
State  V.  Probasco,  46  Kan.  310,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  649,  1218 

State  V.  Quarles,  13  Ark.  307,  781 

State  V.  Ragland,  75  N.  Car.  12,  646 
State  V.   Railroad  Company,    16 

Fed. R.  708,  334 

State  V.  Rash,  12  Ired.  Law  382, 

S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  420,  707 

State  V.  Raven,  115  Mo.  419,  S.  C. 

22  S.  W.  R.  376,  802 

State  V.  Rawls,  2  Nott  &  McCord 

(S.  Car.)  331,  738 

State  V.  Renfrow,  111  Mo.  589,  S. 

C.  20  S.  W.  R.  299,  1074 

State  V.  Rhea,  25  Kan.  576,  627 

State  V.  Rhodes,  1  Houst.  (Del.) 

Crim.  Cas.  476,  738 

State  V.  Rich,  20  Mo.  393,  123,  144 
State  V.  Richie,  28  La.  Ann.  327,  520 
State  V.  Richmond,  6   Frost.    (N. 

H.)  2.32,  248 

State  V.  Ricketts,  74  N.  Car.  187,  1111 
State  V.  Rider,  46  Kan.  332,  S.  0. 

26  Pac.  R.  745,  307 

State  V.  Rieg,  10  Nev.  284,  668 

State  V.  Rising,  15  Nev.  164,  178 

State  V.  Robbins  (Me.),  13  Atl. R. 

584,  537 

State  V.  Roberts,  8  Nev.  239,  155 

State  V.  Robey,  8  Nev.  239,  142 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccli 


{References  are  to  Fayes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Robinson,  39  Me.  150,  31 

State  V.  Robinson,  1  Kan.  188,      1241 
State  V.  Robinson,  ;>5  S.  Car,  340, 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  700,  809 

State  V.  Rodwiiy,  1  S.  Dak.  575,  S. 

C.  47  N.  W.  R.  1061,  224 

State  V.  Rogers,  108  Mo.  202,  S.  C. 

18  S.  W.  R.  y7G,  804 

State  V.  Rogers,  112  N.  Car.  874, 

S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  2!)7,  823 

State  V.  RoUius,  77  Me.  380,  784 

State  V.  Rorabai-ber,  19  la.  154,       791 
State  V.  Rose,  47  Minn.  47,  8.  C. 

49  N.  W.  R.  404,  1071 

State  V.  Rowe,  98  N.  Car.  629,  S. 

C.  4  S.  E.  R.  506,  1063 

State  V.  Ruhhnan,  111  Ind.  17,      1213 
State  V.  Rush,  77  Mo.  519,  803 

State  V.  Russell,  13  Mont.  — ,  S. 

C.  32  Pao.  R.  854,  630 

State  V.  Russell,  33  La.  Ann.  135,  1074 
State  V.  Ruth,  21  Kan.  583,  1211 

State  V.  Ryan  (Mo.),  22  S.  W.  R. 

486,  1237 

State  V.  Sachs,  3  Wash.  691,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  446,  218,  228,  233 

State  V.  Sackett,  39  Minn.  69,  644 

State  V.  Salge,  2Nev.  321,  697 

State  V.  Saline  Co.,  51  Mo.  350,  482 
State  V.  Saline  County,  18   Neb. 

422  202 

State 'v.  Sanders,  106  Mo.  188,  S. 

C.  17  S.  AV.  R.  223,  228 

State  V.  Sanders,  68  Mo.  202,  812 

State  V.  Sansome,  116  Mo.  1,  S.  C. 

22  S.  W.  R.  617,  1219 

State  V.  Sater,  8  la.  420,  804 

State  V.  Sargent,  32  Me.  429,  799 

State  V.  Saunders,  66  N.  H.  39,  S. 

C.  18  L.  R.  A.  646,        290,  482,  1127 
State  V.  Scheele,  57  Conn.  307  S. 

C.  18  Atl.  R.  256,  558 

State  V.  Schumm,  47  Minn.  373,  S. 

C.  SON.  W.  R.  362,  652 

State  V.  Schwin,  65  Wis.  207,  S. 

C.  26  N.  W.  R.  568,  543 

State  V.  Scott,  SO  N.  Car.  365,  729,  736 
State  V.  Scott,  113  Mo.  559,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  1076,  1237 

State  V.  Seay,  64  Mo.  89,  544,  558 

State  V.  Severance,  2  New  Eng. 

R.  425,  220 

State  v.Severson,  7S  la.  653.  520,742 
State  V.  Shaw,  43  Ohio  St.  324,  630 
St<\te  V.  Sheelev,  15  Iowa  404,  655 

State  V.  Sheeriii,  12  Mont.  539,  S. 

C.  31  Pac.  K.  543,  661 

State  V.  Sheldon.  2  Kan.  322,  1242 
State  V.  Slu>lledv,  S  la.  477,  1071 

State  V.  Shelley",  11  Lea  594,  308 


6 


737 

808 
204 
820 
204 
204 
247 
542 
1077 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-I244.] 
State  V.  Shields,  .33  La.  Ann.  991,     657 
State  V.  Shipman,  93  Mo.  147,  S. 

C.  6  S.  W.  R.  97,  224 

State  V.  Siinien,  30  La.  Ann.  296,  623 
State  V.  Sinegal,  45  La.  Ann.  287, 

S.  C.  12So.  R.  351,  625 

State  V.  Sipult,  17  la.  575,  1078 

State  V.  Slave  Bill,  15  La.   Ann. 

114,  663 

State   V.  Small  wood,  75   N.    Car. 

104,  1070 

State  V.  Smith,  49  Conn.  376, 
State  V.  Smith,  54  la.  104,  S.  C 

N.  W.  R.  153, 
State  V.  Smith,  5  Mo.  App.  427, 
State  V.  Smith,  75  N.  Car.  306, 
State  V.  Smith,  15  Mo.  App.  412, 
State  V.  Smith,  82  Mo.  51, 
State  V.  Smith,  65  N.  Car.  369, 
State  V.  Smith,  93  N.  Car.  516, 
State  V.  Smith,  6  R.  I.  33, 
State  V.  Sneed,  91  Mo.  552,  S.  C.4 

S.  W.  R.  411,  225,237 

State  V.  Sorter  (Kan.),  34  Pac.  R. 

1036,  796 

State  V.  Soper,  16  Me.  293,  S.  C. 

33  Am.  Dec.  665,  1024,  1034 

State   V.  Sparrow,  3  Murph.   (N. 

Car.)  487,  179,  696 

State  V.  Spencer,  92  Ind.  115,  1182 
State  V.  Spencer,  64  N.  Car.  316,  915 
State  V.  Spooner,  41  La.  Ann.  780, 

S.  C.  6  So.  R.  879,  1075 

State  V.  Stain,  82  Me.  472,  1160 

State  V.  Steele,  33  La.  Ann.  910,  312 
State  V.  Steen,    115  Mo.  474,  S.  C. 

22  S.  W.  R.  461,  631 

State  V.  Stewart,  74  la.  336,  627 

State  V.  Stewart,  32  Mo.  379,  256 

State  V.  Sticklev,  41  la.  232,  740 

State  V.  Stigall,  2  Zab.  (N.  J.)  280,  290 
State  V.  Stonum,  62  Mo.  596,  1058 

State  V.  Stoughton,  51  Vt.  362,  664 
State  V.  Stout,  49  Ohio  St.  270,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  437,  698 

State  V.  Stratton,  110  Mo.  426,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  803,  1161 

State  V.  Sullivan, 120  Ind.  197,  409,  975 
State  v.  Sullivan  (S.  Car.),  17  S.  E. 

R.  865,  634 

State  v.  Summers,  36  S.  Car.  479, 

S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  369,  660 

State  V.  Sutcliffe,  16  R.  I.  410,  S. 

C.  16  Atl.  R.  710,  i:29 

State  V.  Snttorlield,  54  Mo.  391,  254 
State  V.  Swartz,  9  Tn<L  221,  122»i 

State  V.  Swavze,  30  La.  Ann.  1325,  543 
State  V.  Swift,  1 1  Nev.  128,  203 

State  V.  Tate,  109  Mo.  265,  S.  C. 
I      18  S.  W.  R.  1088,  185 


cclii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


667 
800 
153 

646 
213 
248 
668 
720 
121 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Tavlor(La.),ll  So.  R.  132,   652 
State  V.  Taylor,  98  Mo.  240,  798 

State  V.  Tayloi-,  5  Ind.  App.  29,  S. 

C.  31  N.  E.  R.  543,  659 

State  V.  Templin,  122  Ind.  235,      1166 
State  V.  Tennison,  42  Kan.  330,  S. 

C.  22  Pac.  R.  429,  823 

State  V.  Thibeau,  30  Vt.  100,  1171 

State  v.Thistlethwaite,  83Ind.317, 

1189 
State  V.  Thomas,  3  Strob.(S.  Car.) 

269,  807 

State  V.  Thomas,  111  Ind.  515,  S. 

60  Am.  R.  720,  179,  697 

State  V.  Thompson,  21  W.Va.  741, 

1071,  1074 
State  v.Thompson,45  La.  Ann. , 

S.  C.  13  So.  R.  392,  1067 

State  V.  Thornton,  108  Mo.  640,  S. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  841, 
State  V.  Tickel,  13  Nev.  502, 
State  V.  Todd,  72  Mo.  288, 
State  V.  Toland,  36  S.  Car.  515,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E.  R.  599, 
State  V.  Tolle,  71  Mo.  645, 
State  V.  Tolleston,  53  Fed.  R.  18, 
State  V.  Tom,  8  Ore.  177, 
State  V.  Towler,  13  R.  I.  661, 
State  V.  Tucker,  46  Ind.  356, 
State  V.  Tuller,  34  Conn.  280, 

308,  665,  668 
State  V.  Turner,  36  S.  Car.  534,  S. 

C.  15  S.  E. R.  602,  798,  1220 

State  V.  Ulrich,  110  Mo.  350,  S.  C. 

19  S.  W.  R.  656,  179 

State  V.  Underwood,  49  Me.  181,     308 
State  V.  Underwood,  44  La.  Ann. 

1114,  S.  C.  11  So.  R.823,       622,1121 
State  V.  Upham,  38  Me.  261,  820 

State  V.  Vail,  53  Mo.  97,  256 

State  V.  Vansant,  80  Mo.  67, 

1071,  1074,  1075 
State  V.  Vittum,  9  N.  H.  519,  31 

State   V.   Voorhies,   41  La.  Ann. 

567,  S.  C.  6  So.  R.  826,  218,  233 

State    V.    Walker,   26    Ind.   346, 

180,  1124 
State  V.  Wallace,  41  Ind.  445, 
State   V.  Wallace,  3  Ired.  L.  (N 

Car.)  195 
State  V.  Walters,  7  Wash.  246,  S. 

C.  34  Pac. R.  938. 
State  V.  Waltham.  48  Mo.  55, 
State  V.  Walton,  74  Mo.  270, 
State  V.  Wanee,  4  Ind.  App.  1,  S. 

C.  30  N.  E.  R.  161, 
State  V.  Ward,  9  Heisk,  (Tenn.) 

100, 
State  V.  Ward,  14  La.  Ann.  673, 
State  V.  Ward,  39  Vt.  225, 


206 

*1108 

'  801 
669 
656 

183 

581 
663 
657 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
State  V.  Ward,  49  Conn.  429,  308 

State  V.  Warmoth,  22  La.  Ann.  1,  170 
State  V.  Washburn,  22  Wis.  99,  630 
State  V.  Watts,    10   Ired.  L.   (N. 

Car.)  369,  1103 

State  V.  Watts,  82  N.  Car.  656,  1171 
State  V.  Waupaca  County  Bank, 

20  Wis.  640,  322 

State  V.  Weare,  38  N.  H.  314,  158 

State  V. Weatherby,  45  Mo. 17,  144,  324 
State  V.  Webber,  22  Mo.  321,  724 

State  V.  Weddington,  103  N.  Car. 

364,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  577,  638 

State  V.  AVeiskittle,  61  Md.  48,  1227 
State  V.  Weldon  (So.  Car.),  17  S. 

E.  R. 688,  741 

State  V.  Wells,  46  la.  662,  623,  654 
State  V.  Welsor  (Mo.),  21  S.  W. 

R.  443,  657 

State  V.  Wentworth,  65  Me.  234, 

S.  C.  20  Am.  Rep.  688,  780 

State  V.  W^estmoreland,  29  S.  Car. 

1,  S.  C.6S.  E.  R.  847,  1137 

State  V.  Wetherford,  25  Mo.  439,  629 
State  V.  Wheeler,  108  Mo.  658,  S. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  924,  656 

State  V.  Whit,  72  Am.  Dec.  538, 

1059,  1069 
State  V.  White,  101  N.  Car.  770,  S. 

C.  7  S.  E.  R.  715,  S.  C.  11  Crim. 

L.  Mag.  231,  548 

State  V.  White,  27  Am.  Rep.  137,  782 
State  V.  Whitman,  14  Rich.  L.  (So. 

Car.)  113,  667 

State  V.  Whitney,  7  Ore.  386,  233 

State  V.  Wilcox,  11  Mo.  569,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  314,  1076 

State  V.  Wilev,  109  Mo.  439,  S.  C. 

19S.  W.R:197,  122 

State  V.  Williams,  2  McCord  (So, 

Car.)  383,  627 

State  V.  Williams,  14  W.  Va.  851, 

226,  231 
State  v.Williams.35  La.  Ann.  742,  216 
State  V.  Williams,  69  Ala.  311,  1241 
State  V.Williams,  30  Me.  484,  654,  667 
State  V.  Williams,  48  Ark.  227,  S. 

C.  2  S.  W.  R.  843,  153,  154 

State  V.  Williams,  7  Jones  (N.  C.) 

446,  30 

State  V.  Williamson,  106  Mo.  162, 

S.  C.  17  S.  W.  Rep.  172,  661 

State   V.   Williamson,    42    Conn. 

261  1074 

State  V.  Wilner,  40  Wis.  304,  526 

State  V.  Wilson,  40  La.  Ann.  751, 

S.  C.  1  L.  R.  A.  795,  1113 

State  v.Wilson,44  Mo.  App.  136,  1238 
State  V.  Wilson,  8  Ta.  407,  655 

State  V.  Wing,  32  Me.  581,  1171 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccliii 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
State  V.  Wise,  7  Rich.  412,  1112 

State  V.  Witham,  72  Me.  531,  789 

State  V.  Wolever,  127  lt\d.  30«3, 

12G,  133,  260 
State  V.  Woodlief,  2  Cal.  241,  319 

State  V.  Woodson,  41  Mo.  227,  297 
State  V.  Woolery,  39  Mo.  525,  009 

State  V.  Wonlen,  46  Conn.  349,  S. 

C.  33  A  Ml.  K.  27,  645 

State  V.  Workman,  38  S.  Car.  550, 

S.  C.  17  S.  E.  K.  694,  821,  1075 

State  V.  Worlev,  U  Ired.  L.   (N. 

Car.)  242,     "  434 

State  V.  Wright,  16  R.  I.  518,   S. 

C.  17  All.  998,  164 

State  V.  Wvse,  32  S.  Car.  45,  1129 

State  V.  Yancev,  121  Ind.  20,  258 

State  V.  Young,  29  Minn.  474,  213 

State  V.  Young,  3  Kan.  445,  119 

State  V.  Zellers,  2  Halst.  (N.  J.) 

220,  179,  695 

State  Bank  v.   Brown,    1  Scam. 

106,  366 

State    Bank    v.    Cason,  5    Eng. 

(Ark.)  479,  377 

State  Bank   v.  Cooper,   2  Y'erg. 

599,  121 

State  Bank  v.  Marsh,  10  Ark.  129,  456 
State    Bank  v.    Roddy,   15    Ark. 

401,  1178 

State,  ex.  rel.,  v  .  Beattie,  38  La. 

Ann.  452,  227 

State,  ex.  rel.,  Travelers'  Ins.  Co., 

V.  Harris.  89  Ind.  363,  369 

State  National   Bank  v.  Neel,  53 

Ark.  110,S.C.  22  Am.  St.R.,185,     155 
State  of  R.  I.  v.  Towler,  13  R.  I. 

661,  720 

State  R.  R.  Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S. 

575  403 

Stavner  v.  Joyce,  120  Ind.  99,  799 

Stead  V.  Salt,  3  Bing.  101,  583 

Steagald  v.  State,  22  Texas  App. 

464,  S.  C.  3  S.  W.  Rep.  771,  660 

Steamboat  Osprey  v.  Jenkins,  9 

Mo.  643,  1195 

Steamer  St.   Lawrence,  1   Black 

(U.  S.)  522,  256 

Steamship  v.  Tugman,  106  V .  S. 

118,  347,  511 

Stearn  v.  Barrett,  1  Mason  153,  1113 
Stearns  v.  Cope,  109  111.  340,  595 

Stearns  v.  Gossehn,  58  Vt.  38,  544 
Stearns  v.  Page,  7  How.  (U.  S.) 

819,  367 

Stearns  v.  Stearns,  16  :Mass.  167,  299 
Stearns  v.  Walhice,  58  N.  H.  228,  443 
Stearns  v.  "Wright,  51  N.  H.  600, 

218,  238,  332 
Stebbins  v.Duncan,108  U.S.32,   32. 504 


.  1-002,  Vol.  ILpp.  00:{-l-J44.] 
Stebbins  v.  Sackett,  5  Conn.  258,     517 
Stedeker  v.    Bernard,    102  N.  Y. 

327,  1194 

Stedman  v.  Vickerv,  42  Me.  132,  472 
Steed  V.  Knowles,  97  Ala.  573,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  75,  1066 

Steel  V.  Smelting  Co.,  106  U.  S. 

447,  251 

Steele  v.  Bates,  2  Aik.  (Vt.)  338, 

S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  720,  458 

Steele  v.Grigsbv,79  Ind.  184,  1132,1143 
Steele  v.  Havnes,  20  Neb.  316,  1180 
Steele  v.  People,  45  III.  152,  623 

Steele  v.  Renn,  50  Tex.  467,  S.  C. 

32  Am.  R.  605,  274 

Steele  v.  Souder,  20  Kan.  .39,  384 

Steele  v.  Stugis,  5  Abb.  Pr.  R.  442,  196 
Steele  v.  White,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

478,  569 

Steelraan  v.  Watson,  5  Gilm.  (111.) 

249,  1195 

Steen  v.  Norton,  45  Wis.  412,  472 

Steere  v.  Brownell,  124  111.  27,  375 
Steere  v.  Brownell,  113  111.  415,  585 
Steernian  v.  State,  10  Mo.  503,  308 
Steff  V.  Andrews.  2  Madd.  6,  572 

Steffenson  v.    Chicago,   etc.,    Ry. 

Co.,  51  Minn.  531,  S.  C.  53  N.W. 

R.  800,  1079 

Steffy  V.  Carpenter,  37  Pa.  St.  41,  551 
Steffv  V.  People,  130111.  98,   S.  C. 

22  N.  E.  R.  861,  718 

Stegall  V.  Huff,  54  Tex.  193,  445 

Stein  V.  Bowman,  13  Peters  (U.S.) 

209,  508 

Stein  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.,  41 

111.  App.  38,  ■       1096,  1170 

Steinbach  v.  Leese,  27  Cal.  295,  452 
Steinraan    v.    Magnus,    11    East 

390,  567 

Steinman  v.  Strauss,  18  N.Y''.Supp. 

48,  439 

Stensgaard  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co., 

50  Minn.  429,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R. 

910,  178 

Stephens  v.  Brooks,  2  Bush.  (Kv.) 

137,  1056 

Stephens  v.  Graham,  7  Serg.  &  R. 

505,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  485,  532 

Stepliens  v.  Koonce,  106  N.  Car. 

222,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  996,      253,  492 
Stephens  v.   McCormick,  5  Bush 

(Kv.)  181,  381 

Stephens  v.  Motl.  81  Tex.  115,  S.  C. 

16  S.  AV.  R.  731.  112 

Stephens  v.  People,  38  Mich.  739, 

661,  663 
Stephens  v.  People.  19  N.  Y.  549,  801 
Stephens  v.  State,  20  Tex.  App. 

255,  820 


ccliv 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'\ 


Stephens  v.  State,  53  N.  J,  L.  245, 

S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  1038,  661 

Stephenson  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf.  508, 

S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  489,  381 

Stephenson   v.  Duncan,    73  Wis. 

404,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  337,  555 

Stephenson  v.   Ins.  Co.,  54  Me. 

70,  588 

Stephenson  v.  Newcomb,  5  Harr. 

(Del.)  150,  327 

Stephenson    v.    Oatman,    3    Lea 

(Tenn.)  462,  590 

Stephenson   v.    Piscataqua,   etc., 

Co.,  54  Me.  55,  408 

Stephenson  v.  Repp,  47  Ohio  St. 

551,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  803,  389 

Stephenson  v.  State,  110  Ind.  358,    177 
Stephenson  v.  State,  40  Ga.  291,     1071 
Stepherd  v.  People,  19  N.  Y.  537,    522 
Stepp  V.  National,  etc.,  Ass'n,  37 
S.  Car  417,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  134, 

644,  1142 
Stepp  V.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim.  R. 

349,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  753,  1113 

Sterling  v.  Bock,  37  Minn.  29,  782 
Sterling  v.  Callahan,  94  Mich.  536, 

S.  C.  54  N.  W.  R.  495,  1076 

Sterling,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Early,  69  la. 

94,  S.  C.  28  N.  W.  R.  458,  1190 

Sterling  v.  Parish,  26  La.  Ann.  59,  202 
Sterling  v.  Parsons,  9  Utah  81,  S. 

C.  33  Pac.  R.  245,  1165 

Sterling  v.  Winter,  80  Mo.  141,  373 
Stern  v.  O'Connell,  35  N.  Y.  104,  500 
Stern  v.  Stern,  44  111.  App.  107,  1194 
Sterndale  v.  Hankinson,  1  Sim. 

393,  376 

Stetson  V.  Stetson,  80  Me.  483,  290 
Stetson  V.  Stevens,  64  Vt.  649,  S. 

C.  25  Atl.  R.  429,  484 

Steubing  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 
138  N.  Y.  658,  S.  C.  34  N.  E.  R. 
369,  1220 

Stevens  v.  Beach,  12  Vt.  585,  S.  C. 

36  Am.  Dec.  359,  744 

Stevens  v.  Beekman,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

318,  484 

Stevens  v.  Burr,  61  Ind.  464,  640 

Stevens  v.  Dilhnan,  86  111.  233,  475 
Stevens  v.  Fuller,  136  U.  S.  468, 

126  133 
Stevens  v.  Fuller,  55  N.  H.  443,  '  605 
Stevens  v.  Griffith,  111  IJ.  S.  48,  115 
Stevens  v.  Logansport,  76  Ind,  498, 

1096 
Stevens  v.  Matthewson,  45  Kan. 

594,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  38,  1096 

Stevens  v.  Pierce,  151  Mass.  207,  353 
Stevens  v.  Record,  56  Me.  488,  598 
Stevens  v.Solid,etc. , Co., 7  Col.86,   1180 


Stevens  v.  State,  50  Kan.  712,  S. 

C.  32  Pac.  R.  350,  780 

Stevens  Point,  etc..  Bank  v.  Kick- 
bush,  78  Wis.  218,  S.  C.  47  N. 
W.  R.  267,  392 

Stevenson  v.  Miller.  2  Lit.  (Ky.) 

306,  S.C.  13  Am.  Dec.  271,     217,  346 
Stevenson   v.    Sherwood,   22   111. 
238,  S.  C.  74  Am.  Dec.  140, 

618,  622,  623,  1232 
Stevenson  v.   Superior  Court,  62 

Cal.  60,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  465,  325 
Stevenson  v.  Stiles,3  N.  J.  L.  543,  667 
Stevenson  v.  Watson,  L.  R.  4  C. 

P.  D.  148,  407 

Stevenson  v.  Yorke,  4  Term  Rep. 

10,  403 

Stevison   v.  Earnest,  80  111.  513, 

181,  1223 
Stewart  v.  Anderson,  70  Tex.  588, 

S.  C.  8  S.  W.  R.  295,  446 

Stewart  v.  Board,  etc.,  25   Miss. 

479,  276 

Stewart  v.  Fitch,  31  N.  J.  L.  17,  1122 
Stewart  v.  Garrett,  65  Md.  392,  382 
Stewart  v.  Good,  29  Ala.  476,  1197 
Stewart  v.    Griswold,    134   Mass. 

391,  455 

Stewart  v.  Hamilton,  3  Robt.  (N. 

Y.)  672,  1042 

Stewart  v.  Havens,  17  Neb.  211,      810 
Stewart  v.  Huntington  Bank,    11 
S.  &.  R.  267,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec. 
628,  718,  1218,  1221 

Stewart  v.  Jones,  9  Tex.  469,  1181 

Stewart  v.  Montgomery,  23  Pa.  St. 

401,  301,  1176 

Stewart  V.  Patrick,  5  Ind.  App.  50, 

S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  814,  1095 

Stewart  v.  People,  23  Mich.  63,  S. 

C.  9  Am.  R.  78,  807,  1112,  1117 

Stewart  v.  Sonneborn,  98  U.   S. 

187  552 

Stewart  v.  Spaulding,  72  Cal.  264,  373 
Stewart  v.  Sprott,  37  S.  Car.  605, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  35,  1140 

Stewart  v.  State,  111  Ind.  526,  705 
Stewart  v.  State,  13  Ark.  720,  662,  666 
Stewart  v.  Stringer,  41  Mo.  400, 

S.  C.  97  Am.  Dec.  278,     254,  298,  492 
Stewart  V.  Sutherlund,  93  Cal.  270, 

S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  947,  622 

Stewart  v.  Taylor,  68  Cal.  5,  255 

Stewart  v.  Wyoming,  etc.,  Co., 
128  IT.  S.  383,  S.  C.  9  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  101,  1212 

Stickney  v.  Blair,  50  Barb.  341,  1211 
Stiles  V.  Ford.  2  Col.  128,  1110 

Stiles  V.  Steele,  37  Kan.  552,  1051 

Stille  v.Layton,2  Harr.  (Del. )149,    509 


TA15LE    OF    CASES. 


cclv 


[References  are  to  Pcifjcs,  Vol.  J,  pp 
Stillwell  V.  Bertrand,  22  Ark.  375,    376 
Stilhvell  V.  Carpenter,  62  N.  Y. 

639,  187 

Stillwell  V.  Farewell,  64  Vt.  286, 

S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  243,  797 

Stilwell  V.  Kello?^',  14  Wis.  461,  349 
Stinipson  v.  I'ocjle,  141  Mass.  502,  567 
Stimson  v.  Green.  13  Allen,  326,  201 
Stimson  v.  Huggins,  9  How.  Pr. 

86,  181,  1222 

Stinson  v.  State,  32  Ind.  124.  236 

Stipp  V.  Washington  Hall  Co.,  5 

Blackf.  (Ind.)  473,  597 

Stiringer  v.  Tov,  33  W.  Va.  86,  S. 

C.  10  S.  K.  R".  26,  592 

Stitt  V.  Huidekopers,  17  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  384,  565,  918,  1074 

Stitt  V.  State,  91  Ala.  10,  S.  C.  8 

So.  R.  t)69,  1079 

Stitwell  V.  Williams,  6  Madd.  38,  493 
Stix  V.  Keith,  85  Ala.  465,  1070 

Stix  V.  Sadler,  109  Ind.  254, 

398,  1105,  1146 
Stockdale  v.  Buckingham,  11  la. 

45,  604,  608 

Stockdale  v.  Johnson,  14  la.  178,  192 
Stockley  v.  Goodwin,  78  111.  127, 

618,  619 
Stock,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Board  of  Trade, 

44  111.  App.  358,  1224 

Stock    Quotation,    etc.,     Co.    v. 

Board  of  Trade,  144  111.370,  S. 

C.  33  N.  E.  R.  42,  1052 

Stockton  V.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  50 

N.  J.  Eq.  52,  S.  C.  17  L.  R.A.  97,    482 
Stockton  V.  Demuth,  7  Watts  39, 

S  .C.  32  Am.  Dec.  735,  517,  595 

Stockton  V.  Graves,  10  Ind.  294,  512 
Stockton  V.  Powell,  29  Fla.  1,  S. 

C.  15  L.  R.  A.  42,  10  So.  R.  688, 

122,  171 
Stockton    V.    Stockton,    73    Ind. 

510,  1067 

Stockton  v.Stockton,40  Ind. 225,  1097 
Stock  well  V.  State,  101  Ind.  1, 

1036,1169 
Stokes  V.  Geddes,  46  Cal.  17,  528 

Stokes  V.  Kane,  5  111.  167,  521 

Stokes  V.  People,  53  N.  Y.  164,  661 
Stokes  V.  State,  5  Baxt.   (Tenn.) 

619,  S.  C.  30  Am.  R.  72,  809 

Stolp  V.  Blair,  68  111.  541.  807 

Stone,  Ex  parte,  3  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

380,  1048 

Stone  V.  Atwood,  28  111.  30.  600 

Stone  V.  Carter,  13  Gray  575,  235 

Stone  V.  Crocker,  24  Pick.  (Mass.) 

81,  552 

Stone  V.  Geyser,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Cal. 

315,  1069 


,  1-G0l>,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Stone  V.  Hawkeye,  etc.,  Co.,  68 

la.  736,  1170 

Stone  V.  Magruder,  10  Gill  &  J. 

383,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  177,  474 

Stone  V.  .Marion  Countv,  78  la.  14, 

S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  570,  218 

Stone  V.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  450,  550 
Stone  V.  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.,  132  Pa. 

St.  200  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  67,  536 

Stone  V.  Robinson,  9  Ark.  469,  638 
Stone  V.  Segur,  93  Ma.ss.  568,  664 

Stone  V.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  185  820 
Stone  V.  Taylor,  63  (^a.  309,  1163 

Stonebreaker  v.  Sliort.  8  Pa.  St. 

155,  508 

Stoner  v.  Ellis,  6  Ind.  152,  532 

Stoney  v.  Winterhalter  (Pa.),  11 

Atl.  R.  611,  1156 

Stono  V.  Weiller,  128  N.  Y.  655,  S. 

C.  28  N.  E.  R.  635,  349 

Stoots  V.  State,  108  Ind.  415,  _  668 
Stoppenbach  v.  Zohrlaut,  21  Wis. 

385,  1180 

Storev  V.  Krewson,  55  Ind.  397,  S. 

C.  23  Am.  R.  668,  400 

Stork  V.  Judge,  etc.,  41  :\Iich.  5,  180 
Storm  V.  United  States,  94  U.  S. 

76,  784,  797 

Storm  v.Waddell,2  Sandf.  Ch.  491,  195 
Story,  Ex  parte,  12  Pet.  339, 

1128,  1242 
Story  V.  State,  68  Miss.  609,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  47,  663 

Story  V.  State,  99  Ind.  413,  809 

Stose  V.  Heissler,  120  111.  433,  S. 

C.  60  Am.  R.  563,  584 

Stott  V.  Smith,  70  Ind.  298, 

1212,  1226,  1234 
Stoudt  V.  Shepherd,  73  Mich.  578, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  696,  790 

Stouffer  V.  Niple,  40  Md.  477,  464 

Stout,  Ex  parte.  5  Col.  509,  145 

Stout  V.  Currv,  110  Ind.  514,  485 

Stout  V.  LaFollette,  64  Ind.  365,  196 
Stout  V.  Leonard,  37  N.  J.  L.  492,  464 
Stout  V.  People,  4  Park.  Cr.  (N. 

Y.)  132,  662 

Stout  V.  State,  90  Ind.l,  206,  661,  1074 
Stout  V.  State,  96  Ind.  407,  822 

Stout  V.  Turner,  102  Ind.  418,  1230 
Stout  V.  Wood,  1  Blackf.  71,  517 

Stout  V.  Woodward,  71  N.  Y.  90.  584 
Stovall  V.  Emerson,  20  Mo.  App. 

322,  151 

Stove'ld  V.  Brewin,  2  Barn.  &  Aid. 

116,  399 

Stovev  V.  Brennan,  15  N.  Y.  524,  1067 
Stow  V.  Russel,  36  111.  18,  402 

Stowe  V.  Querner,  L.  R.  5  Exch. 

1.^.^,  715 


cclvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Stowell  V.  Chamberlain,  3  Thomp. 

&  C.  374,  1179 

Stowell  V.  Fowler,  59  N.  H.  585,  382 
Stowell  V.  Read,  16  N.  H.  20,  S.  C. 

41  Am.  Dec.  714,  402 

Strader  v.  Goft",  6  W.  Va.  257,  116o 
Strader  v.  Graham,  10  How.  82,  287 
Strafford  v.  Welch,  59  N.  H.  46,  400 
Strahl,  Ex  parte,  16  la.  369,  214 

Strain  v.  Paulev  Jail,  etc.,  Co.,  80 

Tex.  622,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  625,  556 
Strait  V.  Strait,  3  McArthur,  415,  287 
Strang,  Ex  parte,  21  Ohio  St.  610,  216 
Strange  v.  Tyler,  95  Ind.  396,  188 

Strasburg,  etc.R.  R.  Co. v.  Echter- 

nacht,^21  Pa.  St.  220,  S.  C.  60 

Am.  Dec.  49,  565 

Stratton  v.  Ham,  8  Ind.  84,  199 

Stratton  v.  Kennard,  74  Ind.  302,  1235 
Stratton  v.  People,  5  Col.  276,  657 

Stratton  v.  State,  45  Ind.  468,  803 

Straugh  v.  Gear,  48  Ind.  100,  1029 
Straus  V.   Minzesheimer,   78  111. 

492,  1067 

Straw  V.  Truesdale,  59  N.  H.  109,  593 
Strawn  v.  Cogswell,  28  111.  457,  657 
Street  v.  Chapman,  29  Ind.  142,  636 
Street  v.  Francis,  3  Ohio  277,  296 

Street  v.  Griffiths,  50  N.J.  L.  656, 

S.  C.  14  Atl.  R.  898,  551 

Street  v.  Insurance  Co.,  12  Rich. 

(S.  Car.)  13,  302 

Streeter   v.    Penobscot    Lumber, 

etc.,  Co.,  74  Mich.  123,  S.  C.  41 

N.  W.  R.  883,  448 

Streeter  v.  Streeter,  43  111.  155,  536 
Stref  V.  Hart,  1  N.  Y.  20,  298 

Streyer  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

90  Ga.  56,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  Rep. 

637,  679 

Stribbling  v.  Bank,  5  Rand.  (Va.) 

132,  1103 

Strickler  v.  Tinkham,  35  Ga.  176, 

S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  280,  302 

Strickler  v.  Greer,  95  Ind.  596,  544 
Striker  v.  Kelly,  2  Denio  323,  160 
Stringer  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.  (Ala.),  13So.  R.  75,  1067 

Stringer  v.  Davis,  30  Cal.  318,  176 
Stringer  v.  Insurance  Co.,  L.  R. 

4  Q.  B.  676,  302 

Stringer  v.  Young,  3  Pet.  320,  719 
Striplin  v.  Ware,  36  Ala.  87,  290 

Strobe  v.  Downer,  13  Wis.  11,  246 
Strock  V.  Commonwealth,  90  Pa. 

St.  272,  322,  1196 

Stroh  V.  Hinchman,  37  Mich.  490,  664 
Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

99  Am.  Dec.  114, 

1059,  1061,  1064,  1065,  1079 


2-602,  Vol.  11,  pp.  603-1244.} 
Stronach  v.  Bledsoe,  85  N.  Car. 

473,  676 

Stromburg  v.  Earick,  6  B,  Mon. 

578,  183 

Stromberg  v.  Esterly,  62  Wis.  632, 

S.  C.  22  N.  W.  R.  864,  154 

Strong,  Ex  parte,  20  Pick.  484,  162 
Strong  V.  Beroujon,  18  Ala.  168,  582 
Strong  V.  Bradlv,  13  Vt.  9,  183 

Strong  V.  Catlin,  3  Pinney  121,  434 
Strong  V.  Hollon,  39  Mich.  411,  476 
Strong  V.  Strong,  9  Cush.  (Mass.) 

560,  590,  595,  596,  602 

Strong  V.  Willev,  104  U.  S.  512, 

201,  332 
Stropes  V.  Board,  72  Ind.  42,  1107 

Strosser  v.   City  of   Ft.    Wayne, 

100  Ind.  443, '  129,  484 

Strother  v.  Hutchinson,  4  Bing. 

N.  C.  83,  1238 

Strouse  v.  Drennan,  41  Mo.  289,  314 
Strowger  v.  Sample,  44  Kan.  298, 

S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  425,  1110 

Stuart  V.  Allen,  16  Cal.  473,  S.  C. 

76  Am.  Dec.  551,  336 

Stuart  V.  Laird,  1  Cranch  299,  202 

Stuart  V.  Lake,  33  Me.  87,  517 

Stuart  y.  Mechanics,  etc..  Bank, 

9  Johns.  496,  220 

Stuart  y.  Palmer,  74  N.Y.183,  424,  425 
Stuart  y.  Simpson,  1  Wend.  376,  1041 
Studdard,  In  re,  30  Minn.  553,  1180 
Studebaker  y.  Johnson,  41  Kan, 

326,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  287,         455 
Stull  y.  Howard,  26  Ind.  456,  514 

Stumer  y.  Pitchman,  124  111.  250, 

S.  C.15N.E.R.757,  521 

Stum  y.  Hummell,  39  la.  478,  658 

Stumore  y.  Shaw,  68  Md.  11,  S.  C. 

6  Am.  St.  R.  412,  739 

Stump  y.  Fraley,  7  Ind.  679,  1226 

Sturch  y.  Young,  5  Beay.  557,  1210 
Sturdeyant  y.  Stanton,  47  Conn. 

579,  1186 

Sturdeyant  y.  Tuttle,  22  Ohio  St. 

Ill,  463, 465 

Sturd'iyant    y.   Raines,    1   Leigh. 

(Va.)  481,  1116 

Sturges  y.Crowninshield,4  Wheat. 

122,  348 

Sturgis  y.  Fay,  16  Ind.  429,  S.  C. 

79  Am.  Dec.  440,  281,  438 

Sturgis  y.  Preston,  134  Mass.  372, 

^  364,  393 

Sturgis  y.  Rogers,  26  Ind.  1,  466 

Sturgis  y.  Robbins,  62  Me.  289,  797 
Sturteyanty. Ballard,  9 Johns.  (N. 

Y.)337,  540 

Suarez  y.  Manhatten  Ry.  Co.,  60 

Hun584,S.C.15N.Y.Supp.222,     1081 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclvii 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Sublett  V.  Hodges,  88  Ala.  491,  378  I 
Succession  of  Gorrison,  15  La.  Ann. 

27,  314 

Succession  of  Jan,  43  La.    Ann. 

924,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  0,  220 

Succession  of  Landry,  11  La.  Ann. 

85,  290 

Succession   of  McCalo[),    10    La. 

Ann.  224,  438 

Succession  of  Williamson,   3   La. 

Ann.  261,  314 

Suckley  v.   Rotchford,   12  Gratt. 

(Va.)  (30,  S.  C.G5  Am.  Dec.  240,  174 
Sugg  V.  Thornton,  132  U.  8.  524, 

S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  103,  442 

Suit  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  319,  S. 

C.  17  S.  W.  R.  458,  660 

Suiter  v.  Park  Nat.  Bank,  35  Neb. 

372,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  205,  676 

Sullivan  v.   Biackwell,   28  Miss. 

737,  610 

Sullivan  v.   City  of   Helena,    10 

Mont.  134,  S.  C.  25  Pae.  R.  94,  1162 
Sullivan  v.  Com.,  93  Pa.  St.  284,  812 
Sullivan  v.  Fosdick,  10  Hun  173,  262 
Sullivan  v.  Graffert,  53  la.  531,  478 
Sullivan  v.  McMillan,  26  Fla.  543, 

S.  C.  8  So.  R.  450,  390 

Sullivan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

119  N.  Y.  348,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R. 

820,  554 

Sullivan  v.  Otis,  39  la.  328,  1160 

Sullivan  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  94  U.  S.  807,  376 

Sullivan  v.  Royer,  72  Cal.  248,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  51,  822 

Sullivan  v.  State,  66  Ala.  48,  820 

Sullivan  v.  State,  46  N.  J.  L.  446,  178 
Sullivan  v.  Susong,  30  So.  Car.  305, 

S.  C.  9S.  K.  R.^156,  406 

Suiter  V.  Brooks,  74  Ga.  401,  476 

Summer  v.  Kelly,  38  S.  Car.  507,  S. 

C.  17  S.  E.  R.  364,  1042,  1048 

Summers  v.  Greathouse,  87  Ind. 

205,  1091,  1092 

Summers  v.  State,  53  Ind.  201,  1076 
Summers  v.Tarney,  123  Ind.  560,  1089 
Summerson  v.  Hicks,  134  Pa.  St. 

5(56,  400 

Sumner  v.  Sessoms,  94  N.  Car.  371,  293 
Sumpter  v.  :\Iurrell,  2  Bay.  450,  599 
Sun  V.  Boone  (Tex.),  18  S.  W.  R. 

142,  483 

Sun  Fire  Office  v.  Ayerst  (Neb.), 

55  N.  W.  R.  635,  803 

Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Seeligson,  59 

Tex.  3,  472 

Supervisorsof  Elections, 114  Mass. 

247,  212 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Supervisors  v.  Horton,  75  la.  271,     449 
Supcrvisor.s  v.  Sclienck,  5  Wall. 

772,  166 

Supervisors  v.  South  Ottawa,  12 

111.  480,  202 

Supreme  Council  v.  Forsinger,  125 

Ind.  52,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  196, 

588,  589 
Supreme  Council,    etc.,  v.  Garri- 

gus,  104  Ind.  133,  S.  C.  54  Am. 

R.  298,  408,  588 

Surles  V.  State,  89  Ga.  167,  S.  C. 

15  S.  E.  R.  38,  806 

Sutherland  v.  Governor,  29  Mich. 

320,  S.  C.  18  Am.  R.  89,  251 

Sutherland  v.  Putnam  (Ariz.),  24 

Pac.  R.  320,  182,  1134 

Sutherland  v.  Standard,  etc.,  Co. 

(Ia.),54N.  W.  R.  4.53,  1092 

Sutphen  v.  Fowler,  9  Paige  280, 

280,  281 
Suttle  V.  State,  6  Tex.  App.  556,  666 
Sutton  V.  Fox,  55  Wis.  531,  S.  C. 

42  Am.  R.  744,  667 

Sutton  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R,  Co.,  66 

N.  Y.  243,  546 

Sutton  V.  Reagan, 5  Blackf.  (Ind). 

217,  S.  C.  33  Am.  Dec.  466,  800 

Sutton  V.  Tyrrell,  10  Vt.  91,  586 

Suttrell  V.   Martin   (X.  Car.),   17 

S.  E.  R.  573,  1233 

Suvdam  V.   Iluggerford,  23  Pick. 

(Mass.)  465,  469 

Suydam  v.  Palmer,  63  Ga.  546,  243 
Suydam  v.  Williamson,  24  How. 

427,  275,  1025 

Swafford  v.  Whipple,  3  G.  Greene 

261,  S.  C.  54  Am.  Dec.  498,  675 

Swails  v.  Cissna,  61  la.  (593,  1124 

Swails  V.  Coverdill,  21  Ind.  271,  138 
Swaim  v.  Swaim,  134  Ind.  596,  1082 
Swain   v.   Cawood,   2  Scam.   111. 

505,  1229 

Swan  V.  Bournes,  47  la.  501,  134 

Swan  v.  Clark,  80  Ind.  57, 

1212,  1230 
Swan  v.  Gray,  44  Miss.  393,  1241 

Swan  V.  People,  98  111.  610,  915 

Swan  V.  Tappan,  5  Cush.  (Mass.) 

104,  544 

Swank  v.  Hufnagle,  111  Ind.  453, 

108,  1003 
Swank  v.  Nichols,  24  Ind.  199,  1067 
Swann  v.  Lindsey,  70  Ala.  507,  361 
Swatara.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brune,  6  Gill 

(Md.)4-..  1140 

Swavne  v. Waldo,  73  la.  749,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  St.  R.  '12,  1141 

Swearingen  v.  Gulick, 67  111.  208,    319 


cclviii 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


IBeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Swearingen  v.  Leach,  7  B.  Mon. 

SweuVinsen  v. Wilson,  2  Tex.  Civ. 
Ai)p.  157,  S.  C.  21  S.  AV.  R.  74, 
^  ^  149,  182 

Sweat  V.  Rogers,  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

117, 
Sweeney  v.  Baker,  13  W.\  a.  lo8, 
Sweeney  v.  Perney,  40  Kan.  102, 

S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  328, 
Sweeney  v.  State,  35  Ark.  585, 
Sweeney  v.  United  States,  109  U. 

S.  618, 
Sweeney  v.  Vaudry,  2  Mo.  App. 

352, 
Sweesev  v.  Durnall,  23  Neb.  631, 

S.  C.'37  N.  W.  R.  459, 
Sweet  V.  Myers  (S.  Dak.),  53  N 

W.  R.  187, 
Sweet  V.  Morrison,  116  N.  Y.  19, 

S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  276,  406,  600 

Sweet  V.  Perkins,  24  Fed.  R.  777,  1236 
Sweetland  v.  Barrett,  4  Mont.  217,  393 
Sweetser  v.  Smith,  22  Abb.  N.  C. 

319,  S.  C.  5  N.  Y.  Sup.  378, 
Swem  V.  Green,  9  Col.  358, 
Sweringen  v.  Eberius,  7  Mo.  421, 

S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  463, 
Swett  V.  Sprague,  55  Me.  190, 
Swett  V.  Stark,  31  Fed.  R.  858, 
Swicard  v.  Hooks,  85  Ga.  580,  S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  863, 
Swiftv.  Allen,  55111.  303, 
Swift  V.  Brumfield,  76  Ind.  472, 
Swift  V.  Castle,  23  111.  209, 
Swift  V.  Crumfield,  76  Ind.  472, 
Swift  V.  Myers,  37  Fed.  R.  37, 
Swift  V.  Ratliff,  74  Ind.  426, 
Swift  V.  Stark,  2  Ore.  97, 
Swift  V.  Tyson,  16  Pet  (U.  S.)  18, 
Swift  V.  Allen,  55  111.  303, 
Swiggart  v.  Harber,  4  Scam.  (111.) 

364,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  418,    259,  341 
Switzer  v.  Noffsinger,  82  Va.  518, 

376,  382 
Swope  V.  Hopkins,  119  Ind.  125, 

S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  462,  411 

Swope  V.  Schafer  (Ky.),  4  S.  W. 

R.  300,  1059 

Sydnor  v.  Palmer,  32  Wis.  406,        117 
Sylvester  v.   Jerome    (Col.),   34 

"Pac.  R.  760,  819 

Syme   v.  Broughton,  85  N.  Car. 

367,  679 

Synnott  v.  Shaughnessy,  130  U.  S. 

572,  1186 

Syracuse  v.  Reed,  46  Kan.  520,  S. 

C.  26  Pac.  R.  1043,  1025 

Syracuse    Bank    v.  Tallman,   31 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  201,  495 


706 
646 

552 
544 

407 

593 

557 

1136 


305 
566 

470 
450 
412 

541 
1244 
489 
514 
459 
327 
791 
443 
51 
191 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.} 


T 


Table  Mt.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Waller's, 

etc.,  Co.,  4  Nev.  218,  640 

Tabler  v.   Hannibal,   etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  93  Mo.  79,  547 

Tabor  v.  Judd,62N.  H.288,  800,  801 
Tabor  v.  Mackkee,  58  Ind.  290,  1046 
Tabor  v.  Staniels,  2  Cal.  240,  715 

Tacey  v.  Irwin,  18  Wall.  549,  404 

Tackaberry  v.  City  Nat.  Bk.,  85 
Tex.  488,  S.  C.  22  S.  W.  R. 
9gq  1143 

Tackett  v.  Vogler,  85  Mo.  480,  337 
Taffts  V.  Manlove,  14  Cal.  47,  468 

Taft  V.  Fiske,  140  Mass.  250,  S.  C 

54  Am.  R.  459,  819 

Taft  V.  Stoddard,  142  Mass.  545, 

S.  C.  8  N.  E.  R.  586,  394 

Tagert  v.  Harkness,  1  Eng.  (Ark.) 

528,  1197 

Taggart  v.  Muse,  60  Miss.  870,  318 
Tahoe  v.  Mining  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

636,  463 

Tainter  v.  Mayor,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  46,  485 
Taintor  v.  Williams,  7  Conn.  271,  468 
Talbert  v.  Hopper,  42  Cal.  397,  150 
Talbott  v.  Padgett,  30  S.  Car.  167, 

S.  C.  8  S.  E.  R.  845,  528 

Talcottv.  Rozenberg,  3  Daly  203,  434 
Taliaferro  v.  Franklin,    1   Gratt. 

332,  1221 

Taliferro  v.  Bassett,  3  Ala.  670,  239 
Talkington  v.  Parish,  89  Ind.  202, 

1025,  1030 
Tallmadge  v.  Press  Pub.  Co.,   14 

N.  Y.  Supp.  331,  675,  677 

Tallman  v.  Ely,  6  Wis.  244,  328 

Tallman  v.  McCarty,  11  Wis.  401, 

133,  339,  604 
Tallot  V.Clark,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  51,  514 
Talmadge  v.   Northrop,    1    Root 

(Conn.)  454,  653 

Tampa  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Tampa,  etc., 
Co.,  30  Fla.  400  and  595,  S.  C. 
11  So.  R.  562,  S.  C.  17  L.  R.  A. 
681,  224,  235 

Tankersley  v.  Pettis,  71  Ala.179,  1176 
Tanner  v.  King,  11  La.  R.  175,  312 
Tanner  v.  Smart,  6  Barn.  &  Cres. 

603,  382 

Tant  v.  Wigfall,  65  Ga.  412,  314 

Tapley  v.  Goodsell,  122  Mass.  176, 

^     ^  189,  368 

Tapley  v.  Martin,  116  Mass.  275, 

^  189,  336 

Tappan  v.  Beardsley,  10  Wall.(U. 
S.)  427,  513 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclix 


[References  am  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Tapi):ui    V.    Harrison,  2  Humph. 

(Tenii.)  172,  467 

Tappan    v.    Kimball,   30    N.    H. 

13(),  384 

Tarhell  v.  Farmer's,  etc.,  Co.,  44 

Minn.  471,  8.  C.  47  N.  W.  R. 

152,  405 

Tarbell  v.  Royal  Exchange,  etc., 

Co.,  110  N.  Y.  170,  S.  C.  6  Am. 

St.  R.  350,  557 

Tarble  Cases,  13  Wall.  397,  303 

Tarbox  v.  Gotzian,  20  Minn.  139,    1094 
Tarkington   v.    Purvis,   128   Ind. 

182,  1109 

Tarpenning  v.  Cannon,  28  Kan. 

mo,  227 

Tarwater  v.  Hannibal  R.  R.  Co., 

42  Mo.  193,  54G 

Tasker  v.  Cilley,  59  N.  H.  575,        533 
Tassey  v.  Church,  4  Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)  141,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  65,      618 
Tate  V.  Bell,  4  Yerg.  202,  121 

Tate  V.  Booe,  9  Ind.  13,  390 

Tate  V.  Clements,  16  Fla.  339,         384 
Tate  V.  Vance,  27   Gratt.    (Va.) 

571,  592 

Taul  V.  Winn,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  (Ky.) 

437,  1048 

Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S.  575,  403 

Tay  V.  Hawley,  39  Cal.  93,  443 

Tayloe  v.  Riggs,  1  Peters  (U.  S.) 

591,  502 

Taylor  v.  Atlantic  &  Pacific  R.  R. 

Co.,  68-Mo.  397,  608,  639 

Taylor  v.  Bates,  5  Cow.  376,  362 

Taylor  V.  Beck,3Rand.(Va.)  316,   1194 
Taylor  V.  Benham,  5  How.  (U.  S.) 

233,  354 

Taylor  v.  Betsford,  13  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  487,  1077 

Taylor  v.  Bosworth,  1  Ind.  App. 

54,  232 

Taylor  v.  Burk,  91  Ind.  252,  1089 

Taylor  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  5 

la.  114,  471 

Taylor  v.  Carryl,  24  Pa.  St.  259,      467 
Taylor  v.  Cayce,  97  Mo.  242,  S.  C. 

10  S.  W.  R.  832,  1132 

Taylor  v.  Clendening,  4  Kan.  524,    803 
Taylor  v.  Commonwealth,  44  Pa. 

St.  131,  182 

Taylor  v.  Commonwealth,  3  J.  J. 

Marsh.  401,  203 

Taylor  v.  Com.  (Va.),  17  S.  E.  R. 

gi9  giq 

Taylor  v.  Coots,  32  Neb.  30,  S.  C. 

29  Am.  St.  R.  426,  S.  C.  48  N.  W. 

R.  964,  241,331,449,451 

Taylor  v.  Corvell,  12  Serg.  ct  R. 

(Pa.)  243,     '  583 


J-fJO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  fJ0:i-1244.] 
Taylor  v.  Cranberry  Iron  Co.,  94 

N.  Car.  525,  "  385 

Taylor  y.  Creswell,  45  Md.  422,  679 
Taylor  y.  Davis  (Tex.),  13  S.  W. 

R.  642,  1230 

Taylor  v.  Deverell,  43  Kan.  469, 

S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  62K,  713,  1216 

Taylor  v.  Dickinson,  15  la.  483,  1210 
Taylor  v.  Drane,  13  La.  62,  464 

Taylor  v.  Duesterberg,   109  Ind. 

165,  518 

Taylor  v.  Elliott,  51  Ind.  375,  467 

Taylor  V.  Fletcher,  15  Ind.  80,  1231 
Taylor  v.  FHnt,  35  (ia.  124,  1224,  1232 
Taylor  v.  Ford,  92  Cal.  419,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  R.  441,  355 

Taylor  v.  Granite,  etc.,  Assn.,  136 

N.  Y.  343,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  992, 

441,  442 
Taylor  v.  Henry,  2  Pick.  397,  423 

Taylor   v.    Hill,  10   Leigh.   (Va.) 

457,  551 

Taylor  v.  Hillyer,3  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

433,  526 

Taylor  v.  Hodges,  105  N.  C.  344, 

S.  C.  11.  S.  E.  R.  156,  389 

Taylor  v.  Johnson,  1 13  Ind.  164,  1215 
Taylor  v.  Jones,  2  Atk.  600,  499 

Taylor  v.  Jones,  2  Head.  565,  1123 
TaVlor  V.  Ketchum,  5  Robt.  (N. 

Y.)  507,  1091 

Taylor  v.  Kilgore,  33  Ala.  214,  363 
Taylor  v.  Kuhuke,  26  Kan.  132,  465 
Taylor  v.  Life  Assn.,  3  Fed.  R.465,  194 
Taylor  v.  McClung,  2  Houston 

(Del.)  24,  413 

Taylor  v.  McNairy,  42  IMiss.  276,  1195 
Taylor  v.  McNutt,  58  Tex.  71,  538 
Taylor  v.  Middleton,  67  Cal.  656, 

544,  558 
Taylor  v.  Morrison,  26  Ala.  728, 

S.  C.  62  Am.  Dec.  747,  1067 

Taylor  v.  Ohio   River,  etc.,  Co., 

35  W.  Va.  328,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R. 

1009,  320 

Tavlor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co., 

7  Fed.  R.  381,  194 

Taylor  v.  Place,  4  R.  I.  324,  117 

Tavlor  v.  Pope.  106  N.  Car.  267,  S. 

C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  530,  1149 

Tavlor  v.  Reed,  5  T.  B.  .Monr.  36,  403 
Taylor  v.  Reid.  103  111.  349.  451 

Taylor  v.  Slunise.  73  :\Io.  361,  413 

Taylor  v.  Skriue,  3  Bre.  (S.  Car.) 

516,  214,  216 

Tavlor  v.  Smith,  4  Ga.  133,  236 

Taylor  v.  Smith,  93  Mich.  160,  S. 

C.  52  N.  W.  R.  1118,  583 

Tavlorv.  Spivev,  11  Ired.(N.Car.) 

427,  383 


cclx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Tavlor  v.  State,  130  Ind.  66,  S.  C. 

•19  N.  E.  R.  415,  697 

Tavlor  v.  Suttou,  6  La.  Ann.  709,  565 
Tavlor  v.   Town  of    Monroe,   43 

Conn.  36,  739 

Taylor  v.  AVebb,  54  Miss.  36,  439 

Tavlor    v.   "Whitehead,    2    Doug. 

745,  1156 

Tavlor    Will  Case,  10  Abb.    Pr. 

300,  So 

Tavlor  v.  Williams,  78  Va.  422,  337 
Tavlor  v.  Wilkinson,  22  Wis.  40,  154 
Tavs  V.  Carr,  37  Kan.  141,  S.  C. 

14  Pac.  R.  456,  514 

Teaff  V.  Hewitt,  1  Ohio  St.  511,  S. 

C.  59  Am.  Dec.  634,  1182 

Teal  V.  Bilby,  123  U.  S.  572,  1207 

Teese  v.    Huntingdon,   23    How. 

(U.  S.)  2,  803 

Tefft  V.  Sternberg,  40  Fed.  R.  2,  192 
Telford  v.  Coggins,  76  Ga.  683,  434 
Tempest  v.  Ord.  1  Madd.  59,  497 

Temple  v.  Bank  of    England,  6 

Yes.  770,  480,  487 

Temple  v.  Brittan    (Ky.),  12  S. 

W.  R.  306,  527 

Temple  v.  Com.,  14  Bush.   (Ky.) 

769,  S.  C.  29  Am.  R.  442,  1110 

Templeman  v.  Steptoe,  1   Munf. 

339,  1179 

Templeton  v.  Giddings,  12  S.  W. 

R.851,  218 

Tennessee  v.  Sneed,  96  U.  S.  69,  348 
Tennessee  Co.  v.  Alabama  Co.,  81 

Ala.  94,  182 

Tennessee  River,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Kavanaugh  (Ala.),  13  So.  R. 
283,  1168 

Tennison    v.   Tennison,   49    Mo. 

110,  .603 

Tenny  v.  Filer,  8  Wend.  569,  145 

Tenpenning  v.  Gallup,  8  la.  75,     1161. 
Terre  Haute  v.  Hudnut,  112  Ind. 

542,  91 

Terre'  Haute,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baker, 

122  Ind.  433,  474 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brunker, 

128  Ind.  542,  1104 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Clark,  73  Ind.  168,     1097, 1098,  1173 
Terre   Haute,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Harris,  126  Ind.  7,  S.  C.  25  N. 
E.  R.  831,  574,  597 

Terre    Haute,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Jackson,  81  Ind.  19,  1123 

Terre  Haute  &   I.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Voelker,  129  111.  540,  S.  C.  22  N. 

E.  R.  20,  546,  547 

Terrell  v.  State,  68  Ind.  155,  1131 

Terrell  v.  Walker,  65  N.  Car.  91,     404 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-1244.] 
Terrill  v.  Auchauer,  14   Ohio   St. 

80,  243 

Territory  V.  Ah  Lim,  1  Wash.  156, 

S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  395,  171 

Territory  v.  Ah  Wah,  4  Mont.  149, 

S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  341,  644 

Territory  v.  Baker  (N.  Mex.),  13 

Pac.  R.  30,  1064 

Territory  v.  Burgess,  8  Mont.  57, 

S.  C.  19Pac.  R.588,  1081 

Territory  v.  Judge,  5  Dak.  275,  305 
Territory  v.  Kelly,  2  N.  Mex.  292,  635 
Territory  v.  Kinnev,9  West  Coast 

Rep.  268,  '  618 

Territory  v.  Lannon,  9  Mont.  1,  453 
Territory  v.  Trujillo    (N.  Mex.), 

32  Pac.  R.  154,  1063 

Terry,  Ex  parte,  128  U.  S.  289, 

136,  255 
Terry  v  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  628,  348 
Terry  v.  Berry,  13  Nev.  514,  183,1192 
Terry  v.  Hammonds,  47  Cal.  32,  1178 
Terry  v.  McNeil,  58  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

241,  797 

Terry  v.  Robins,  5  S.  &  M.  291,  1168 
Terry  v.  Shively,  93  Ind.  413,  1091 
Terry  v.  Shively,  64  Ind.  106,  539 

Terry  v.  Wheeler,  25  N.  Y.  520,  559 
Terwilliger  v.  Brown,  44  N.  Y. 

237,  243 

Tesney  v.  State,  77  Ala.  33,  919 

Testard  v.  State,  26  Tex.  App.  260, 

S.  C.  9S.  W^  R.  888,  179 

Tetz  v.  Butterfield,  54  Wis.  242,  407 
Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  700,  116 

Texas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Douglass,  69 

Tex.  694,  S.  C.  7  S.  W.  R.  77,       230 
Texas,  etc.,  R'y.  Co.  v.  Bagwell, 
3  Tex.  Civ.  App.256,  S.  C.  22S. 
W.  R.  829,  620 

Texas  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Watson, 
3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  233,S.  C.  22S. 
^Y.  R.  873,  1068 

Texas  Land  Co.  v.  Williams,  48 

Tex.  602,  174 

Texas  &  P.  R'y.  Co.  v.  Cox,  145 
U.  S.  593,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
905,  609,  1229 

Texas  &  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McCoy, 
3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  276,  S.  C.  22  S. 
W.  R.  926,  1209 

Texas  &  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
79  Texas  78,  S.  C..23  Am.  St.  R. 
308,  S.C.  15  S.W.  R.  264,      1048, 1087 
Texas  Trunk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hogg, 

83Tex.l,S.C.18S.W.R.199,       180 
Thain  v.  Rudisill,  126  Ind.  272,  S. 

C.  26  N.  E.  R.  46,  1186 

Thames,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beville,  100 
Ind. 309,  1155,  1228 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxi 


[Rpferences  are  to  Pafje«,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Thatcher  v.  Iliiinhle,  67  Ind.  444,     481 
Thatcher  v.  Miller,  13  Mass.  270,     436 
Thatcher    v.    Phinnev,    7    Allen 

(Mass.)  146,  '  739 

Thatcher  v.  Powell,  6  Wheat.  119, 

297  316 
Thaw  V.  Ritchie,  13()  U.  S.  519,  '  324 
Thayer  v.  Bacon,  3  Allen  (Mass.) 

1()3,  S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  59,  584 

Thaverv.  Boston,  19  Pick.  (Mass.) 

5n,  531 

Thaverv.  Burger,  100  Ind.  262,  1121 
Thayer  V.  Dove,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

567,  604 

Thayer  v.  Gallup,  13  Wis.  539,  800 
Thaver  v.  Marsh,  75  N.  Y.  340,  1042 
Thayer  v.  Meeker,  86  111.  470,  404 

Thayer  v.  Richards,  44  111.   App. 

195,  1096 

Thaver  v.  Society,  20  Pa.  St.  60,  1103 
Thaver  v.  Tyler,  5  Allen  94,  198 

Thayer  v.  Tyler,  10  Gray  164,  474 

The'   Betsey     and    Charlotte,    4 

Cranch  446,  278 

The  Blanche  Page,  16  Platchf .  1,  277 
The   Board   v.   Shiplev,   77   Ind. 

553,  '  976 

The  Brig  Hiram,  23  Ct.  of  CI.  431,  174 
The  C.  T.  Ackerman,  14  Blatchf. 

360,  277 

The  Charles  Morgan,  115  U.   S. 

69,  800,  801 

The    Chicago,   etc.,   Co.   v.    Mc- 

Daniel,  134  Ind.  166,  1230 

The  Confiscation  Cases,  20  Wall. 

92,  129,  278 

The  Excelsior,  123  U.  S.  40,  588 

The  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fix,  53 

111.  131,  98 

The    Indianapolis,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Frawley,  110  Ind.  18,  1102 

The    Indianapolis,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Watson,  114  Ind.  20,  S.  C.  14  N. 

E.  R.  721,  962 

The  Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  AVilliams, 

22  Ind.  198,  192 

The   Johnston   Harvester  Co.   v. 

Bartlev.  81  Ind.  406,  71 

The  Josepha,  etc.,  10  Wheat.  312,  277 
The    Judges,   etc.   v.   People,   18 

Wend.  79,  1241 

The   King  v.  Catherine's  Hall,  4 

Durn  A  E.  313,  965 

The  King  v.  Commissioners,  3  M. 

ct  S.  133,  920 

Thellusson  v.  Rendlesham,  7  H. 

L.  Cases  429,  225 

The  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Don- 

negan,  et  al..  Ill  Ind.  179,  S.  C. 

12  N.  E.  R.  153,  408 


.  1-602,  Vol.  If,  pp.  603-1244.] 
The  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son, 107  Ind.  442,  103,  108 
The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  558,  256 
TheMarianna  Flora,  11  Wheat.  1,  307 
The  Marv,  9  Cranch  126,  276 
The   Marv   Blane   v.  Beehler,  12 

Mo.  477,  379 

The   Northern  Gas  Light  Co.  v. 

Parnell,  15  C.  B.  630,  406 

The  Xueva  Anna,  6  Wheat.  193,  116 
The  Pahuvra,  12  Wheat.  1,  271,  277 
The  Queen's  Cases,  2  Brod.  &  B. 

284,  789 

The  Rio  Grande,  19  Wall.  178,  277 
The  SantissiniaTrinidad,7  Wheat. 

283,  821 

The   South.   R'y.  Co.   v.  Morris, 

65  Ala.   193,  120 

The  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 

v.  Buck,  96  Ind.  346,  870 

The  AVeavers  Co.  v.  Forrest,  2 

Str.  1232,  423 

The  AVhiskey  Cases,  99  V.  S.  594,  277 
Thieband   v.    Sebastian,  10   Ind. 

454,  509,  510 

Thiers  v.  Holmes  (Tex.),  9  S.  W. 

R.  191,  1025 

Third  Great  Western,  etc..  Co.  v. 

Loomis,  32  N.  Y.  127,  177 

Thirslev  v.  Helbot,  3  Mod.  272,  595 
Thom  v.  State  (Tex.), 22  S.  W.R. 

877,  1224 

Thomas  v.  Austin,  4  Barb.  265,  1185 
Thomas  v.  Black  (Del.),  18Atl.  R. 

771,  411 

Thomas  v.  Brigstocke,  4  Russ  64,  497 
Thomas   v.    Chapman,   45    Barb. 

98,  1124 

Thomas  v.  Churchill,  84  Me.  446, 

S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  899,  126 

Thomas  v.  Croft,  2  Rich  113,  363 

Thomas  v.  Dale,  86  Ind.  435, 

71,  104,  1148 
Thomas  v.  Desnev,  57  la.  58,  S. 

C.  ION.  W.  R.  315,  1190 

Thomas  v.  England,  71  Cal.  456, 

S.  C.  12Pac.  R.  491,  551 

Thomas  v.  Fleurv,  26  N.  Y.  26,  408 
Thomas  v.  Fogarty,  19  Cal.  644,  148 
Thomas  v.  Grillin,  1  Ind.  App.  457, 

1210,  1218,  1232,  1233 
Thomas    v.    Hunnicutt,    54     Ga. 

337,  386 

Thomas  v.  Ireland,   88  Kv.  581, 

S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  356,  '  455 

Thomas  v.  James,  32  Ala.  723,  484 
Thomas  v.  Jones,  2S(;ratt.  383,  1124 
Tlmmas  v.  Jt)slin,  36  Minn.  1,  S. 

C.  I  Am.  St.  R.  624,  300,  1176 

Thomas  v.  Lawson,  21  How.  331,     1169 


cclxii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Thomas  v.  Leach,  2  Mass.  152,        582 
Thomas  v.  McDaneld  (la.),  55  N. 

W.  R.  499,  795 

Thomas  v.  ^lerrj',  113  Ind.  83,  372 
Thomas  v.  Morris,  8  Utah  284,  S. 

C.  31  Pac.  R.  446,  1162 

Thomas  v.  Morrisett,  76  Ga.  384,  314 
Thomas  v.  People,  67  N.  Y.  218,  661 
Thomas  v.  People,  107  111.  517,  S. 

C.  47  Am.  R.  458,  325 

Thomas  v.  Pennrich,  28  Ohio  St. 

55,  333 

Tliomas  v.  Ruddell,  66  Ind.  326,  1029 
Thomas    v.   Simmons,    103    Ind. 

538,  484 

Thomas  v.  Thomas,  15   B.  Hon. 

(Kv.)  178,  525,  536 

Thomas  v.  Upper  Marion  Tp.,  10 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  414,  1121 

Thomason  v.  Grose,  42  Ala.  431,  1052 
Thomason  v.  Odum,  31  Ala.  108, 

S.  C.  68  Am.  Dec.  159,  1178 

Thompson's  Case,  8  Gratt.  637,  1160 
Thompson's  Case,  122  Mass.  428,  457 
Thompson  v. Assn.,  52  Mich.  522,  610 
Thompson  v.  Baker,  74  Me.  48,  468 
Thompson  v.  Bickford,  19  Minn. 

17,  1190 

Thompson  v.  Blanchard,  4  N.  Y. 

303,  694,  795 

Thompson   v.    Brannan,    76   Cal. 

618,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  783,  452 

Thompson    v.    Brandt  (Cal.),   32 

Pac.  R.  890,  626 

Thompson    v.   Brown,    17    Pick. 

462,  197 

Thompson  v.    Charnock,  8  Term 

R.  139,  408 

Thompson  v.  Com.,  8  Gratt.  637, 

1119 
Thompson  v.  Grimes,  5  Ind.  385,  540 
Thompson  v.  Diffendoffer,   1  Md. 

Ch.  489,  195,  496 

Tnompson  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf.  336,  274 
Thompson  v.  Douglass,  35  AV.  Va. 

.337,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  1015,  554,  659 
Thompson  v.  Drake,  32  Ala.  99,  1225 
Thompson  v.  Duff,  119  111.  226,  S. 

C.  10  N.  E.  R.  399,  1064 

Thompson  v.  Hatch,  3  Pick.  512,  172 
Thompson  v.  Hill,  3  Yerg.  167,  299 
Thompson  v.  Howard,  31  Mich. 

309,  354 

Thompson  v.  Ish,  17   Am.  St.  R. 

565,  519 

Thompson  v.  Kerr,  17  Ind.  288,       248 
Thompson  V.  Lee,  19  S.  Car.  489,    1160 
Thompson  v.  Locke,  60 Tex.  .383,     304 
Thompson  v.  Lumlev,  50  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  105,  S.  C.  64  N.  Y.  631,     1041 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Thompson  v.  Lynch,  43  Cal.  482,     1166 
Thompson  V.  Mississippi,  etc., Co., 

2  La.    Ann.  228,  S.  C.  22  Am. 

Dec.  129,  622 

Thompson  v.  People  (111.) ,  33  Am. 

L.  Reg.  41,  1158 

Thompson  v.  Pershing,  86  Ind. 

303,  206 

Thompson  v.  Powning,   15  Nev. 

195,  539 

Thompsom  v.  Reed,  75  Me.  404,  373 
Thompson  v.  Rickford,  19  Minn. 

17,  183 

Thompson   v.    Ridelsperger,    144 

Pa.  St.  416,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  826,        182 
Thompson  v.  Ros6,  16  Conn.  71, 

S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec.  121,  397 

Thompson  v.  Russell,  1  Okla.  225, 

S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  56,  1142 

Thompson  v.  School  Dist.,  71  Mo. 

495,  378 

Thompson  v.  Scott,  4  Dill,  508,  410 
Thompson  v.  Shirley,  1  Esp.  N.  P. 

31  392 

Thompson  v.  Silvers,  59  la.  670,  472 
Thompson  v.  State,  3  Ind.  App. 

371,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  996,  528 

Thompson  v.  State,  9  Tex.  App. 

301,  232 

Thompson  v.  Steamboat  Morton, 

2  Ohio  St.  26,  276,  337 

Thompson   v.  Thompson,  9  Ind. 

323,  414 

Thompson  v.  Thompson,  6  Hous. 

(Del.)  225,  178 

Thompson  v.  Thompson,  52  Cal. 

154,  35 

Thompson  v.  Thornton,  41   Cal. 

626,  619 

Thompson  v.  Tolmie,  2  Pet.16,293,  324 
Thompson  v.  White,  18  Ind.  373,  1233 
Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall. 

457,  314,  328,  329,  330 

Thompson  v.  Wilson,  34  Ind.  94,  508 
Thompson-Houston   Electric  Co. 

V.  Palmer  (Minn.),  53  N.  W.  R. 
1137,  505 

Thomson  v.  Austen,  2  Dowl.  & 

R.  358,  569 

Thomson  v.  Brothers,  5  La.  277,  719 
Thoins  V.  Southard,  2  Dana  475,  499 
Thorn  v.  Maurer,  85  Mich.  569,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  640,  304 

Thorn  v.  Moore,  31  la.  285,  794,  795 
Thorn  v.  Sweenev,  12  Nev.  251,  484 
Thorn  v.  Woodruff,  5  Ark.  55,  198 
Thornburgh  v.  Mastin,  93  N.  Car. 

258,  558 

Thome  v.  Mosher,  20  N.  J.  Eq. 
257,  404 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cclxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Thornton  v.  Adkins,  19  Ga.  4G4,     515 
Thornton  v.  Am.  Writing  Mach. 

Co.,  83  Ga.  288,  S.  C.  20  Am.  St. 

R.  320,  457 

Thornton  v.  Baker,  15  R.  I.  553, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  K.  925,  S.  C.  10 

Atl.  R.  till,  148,  300,  314,  322,  455 
Thornton  v.  Bank,  3  Pet.  30,  1025 

Thornton  v.  Boyd,  25  Miss.  598,  379 
Thornton  v.  Gaar,  87  Va.  315,  519 
Thornton  v.  Jett,  1  Wash.  (Va.) 

138,  1049 

Thornton  v.  Lane,  11  Ga.  459,  1160 
Thornton    v.    McGrath,    1    Duv. 

(Ky.)  349,  243 

Tliornton  v.  McCormick,  75  la. 

285,  576 

Thornton  v.  Roll,  118  III.  350,  484 
Thornton  v.  Thornton,  39  Vt.  122, 

791,  795 
Thornton  v.  West  Feliciana  R.  R. 

Co.,  29  Miss.  143,  678 

Thorp  V.  Craig,  10  la.  461,  1054 

Thorp    V.   Cole,   2    C.    M.   &    R. 

367,  591 

Thorpe  v.  Starr,  17  111.  199,  599 

Thorwegan  v.  King,  11  U.  S.  549,  1067 
Thrall  v.  Mead,  40  Vt.  540,  360 

Thrasher  v.  Ballard,  33   W.  Va. 

285,  S.  C.  25  Am.  St.  R.  894,  1049 
Thrasher  v.  Havnes,  2X.  H.  429,  574 
Thrasher  v.  Overbv,  51  Ga.  91,  602 
Three  Tons  of  Coal,  6  Biss.  379,  277 
Thurber-Whvland  Co.  v.  Klittner, 

16  N.  Y.  Siipp.  828,  S.  C.  42  N. 

Y.  S.  R.  157,  434 

Thurman  v.  Bertram,  20  Alb.  Law 

Jour.  151,  811 

Thurman  v.  Cameron,  24  Wend. 

87,  1168 

Thurman   v.   Shelton,    10    Yerg. 

(Tenn.)383,  381 

Thurston  v.  Citv,  51  Mo.  510,  S. 

C.  U  Am.  R.  463,  957 

Thurston  v.Kennett,  22  N.H.  151,  J676 
Thuston  V.  State,   18  Tex.    App. 

26,  1073 

Thwaites  v.  Mackerson,  3  C.&  P. 

341,  414 

Thvgerson  v.  Whitbeck,  5  Utah, 

406.  S.  C.  KJ  Pa<-.  R.  403,  575 

Tibbals  v.  Sargeaut,  14  N.  J.  Eq. 

449,  496 

Tibbetts    v.    O'Connell,    66   Ind. 

171,  1158 

Tibbetts  v.  Penlev,  83  Me.  118,  S. 

C.  21  Atl.  R.  838,  152,  1213 

Tichborne's   Case,   3  Wharton  & 

Stille  :\Ied.  Juris.  Sec.  623,  30 

Tidd  V.  Rines,  26  INIinn.  201,  1191 


.  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  G03-1244.] 
Tidd  V.  Smith,  3  N.  H.  178,  453 

Tiernan  v.  Rescaniere,  10  G.  &  J. 

(Md.)  217,  376 

Tierney  v.  Union  Lumbering  Co., 

47  Wis.  248,  177 

Tiffany  v.  (iilbert,  4  Barb.  320,  332 
Titiin  v.  Forester,  8  Mo.  642,  1212 

Tift  V.  Jones,  52  Ga.  538,  179 

Tignor  v.  Bradley,  32  Ark.  781,  464 
Tilghman   v.    Proctor,    125  U.  S. 

136,  201 

Tillam  v.  Copp,  4  C.  B.  211,  593 

Tiller  v.  Abernathy,  37  Mo.  196,  543 
Tillinghast  v.  Champlin,  4  R.  I. 

173,  S.  C.67  Am.  Dec.  510,     410,  411 
Tillinghast   v.  Gilmore,  17  R.    I. 

413,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  942,  582 

Tillinghast  v.  Nourse,  14  Ga.  641,  514 
Tillotson  V.  Pritchard,  60  Vt.  94,  305 
Tilton  V.  Kimball,  52  Me.  500,  665 
Tihon  V.  Vail,  117  N.  Y.  520,  S.  C. 

23  N.  E.  R.  120,  1179 

Tilus  V.  Relyea,  8  Abb.   Pr.    R. 

177,  248 

Timmons  v.  Timmons,  6  Ind.  8,  293 
Tindal  v.  Brown,  1  T.  R.  167,  555 

Tindal  v.  Drake,  60  Ala.  170,  115 

Tindall  v.  AVasson,  74  Ind.  495,  33 
Tinkle     v.     Dunivant,     16    Lea 

(Tenn.)  503,  1120 

Tinlv  V.  .Martin,  80  Kv.  463,  1182 

Tipp'ack  V.  Bryant,  63  Mo.  580,  255 
Tippin  V.  Coleman,  59  Miss.  641,  381 
Tipping  V.  State,  14  Ga.  422,  308 

Tipton  V.  Tipton,  87  Ky.  243,  312 

Tipton    V.    State,   30  Tex.    App. 

530,  807 

Tischler  v.  Apple,  30  Fla.  123,  S. 

C.  11  So.  Rep.  273,  783 

Tischler  V.  Hofheimer,  83  Va.  35, 

S.  C.  4  S.  E.  R.  370,  412 

Tittenson  v.  Peat,  3  Atk.  529,  602 
Titus  V.  Ash,  24  N.  H.  319,  800 

Titus  V.  Scantling,  4  Blackf.  89, 

576,  584 
Tobev  V.  County  of  Bristol,  3  Storv 

(U".  S.)  800,   ■  58o,  587 

Tobin  V.  Jenkins.  29  Ark.  151,  679 
Tobin  y.  Missouri  Pacitic  R.  R.  Co. 

(Mo.),  18  S.  W.  R.  996,  534 

Toblerv.  Stubbletield.  32  Tex.  188, 

1200 
Tobv  V.   Orocon  Pac.   R.  R.  Co. 

( Cal . ) .  33  Pac .  R .  550,  509 

Tod  y.  AVick.  36  Ohio  St.  370,  302 

To.l<l  y.  Badger,  134  Ind.  204,  S.  C. 

33  N.  E.  R.  963,  1096 

Todd  V.  Barlow,  2  Johns.  Ch.  (N. 

Y.)5.->1,  600 

Todd  y.  Hurkman,  11  Me.  41,  199 


cclxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Todd  V.  Flournov's  Heirs,  56  Ala. 

99,  S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  758,  318 

Todd  V.  Gray,  16  S.  Car.  635,  656 

Todd  V.  Jackson,  75  Ind.  272,  1157 
Todd  V.  State,  25  Ind.  212,  1159 

Todd  V.  Todd,  15  Ala.  743,  362 

Toland  v.  Sprague,  12  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

300,  553 

Tolbert  v.  Burke,  89  Mich.  132,  S. 

C.  50  N.  W.  R.  803,  720 

Tolbert  v.  Horton,  33  Minn.  104,  34 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dunlap, 

47  Mich.  456,  814 

Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Detroit,  etc., 

Co.,  61  Mich.  9,  S.  C.  27  N.  W. 

R.  715,  488 

Toledo    &    "Wabash    Ry.   Co.    v. 

Goddard,  25  Ind.  185,     525,  530,  546 
Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ingraham,  77 

111.  309,  1171 

Toledo,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Milligan 

52  Ind.  505,  1097 

Toledo,  W.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Owen 

43  Ind.  405,  441 

Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Penna.  Co.,  54 

Fed.  R.  730,  S.  C.  19  L.  R.  A. 

387,  478,  482 

Toledo,  etc.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  48  Ind. 

427,  1227,  1240 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Stephen- 
son, 131  Ind.  203,  S.  C.  30  N.  E. 
'     R.  1082,  622 

Toledo,  etc.,  Works  v.  Works,  70 

Ind.  253,  1211,  1213 

Toldo,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wright,  68 

Ind.  586,  638 

Tolen  V.  Tolen,  2  Blackf.  407,  287 

Tolman  v.  Crane,  44  111.  App.  237, 

1140 
Tolman  v.  Jones,  114  111.  147,  245, 342 
Tome  V.  Parkersburg,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Md.  36,  S.  C.  17  Am.  R.  540,  35 

Tomer  v.  Densmore,  8  Neb.  384,  707 
Tomlin  v.  Fordwitch,  5  Ad.  &  E. 

147,  591 

Tomlin  v.  Hilvard,  43  111.  300,  738 
Tomlinson  v.  Ellison,  104  Mo.  105, 

S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  201,  110 

Tomlinson  v.  Hammond,  8  la.  40,  592 
Tomlinson  v.  Harris,  130  Ind.  339,  192 
Tomlinson  v.  Stiles,  4  Dutch.  (N. 

J.)  201,  468 

Tomlinson  v. Wallace, 16  Wis. 224,  1079 
Tompert  v.  Lithgow,  1  Bush  (Ky.) 

176,  316 

Tompkins  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  33  S.  Car.  216,  S.  C.  11  S.  E. 

R. 692,  527 

Tompkins  v.  Batie,  11   Neb.  147, 

S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  361,  402 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Tompkins  v.  Henderson,  83  Ala. 

391  33 

Tompkins  v.  Hvatt,  19  N.Y.  534,  1182 
Tonev  v.  Tonev,  73  Ind.  34,  397 

Tooke  V.  Newman,  75  111.  215,  451 
Tookerv.  Thompson,  3  McLean 92,  509 
Toomes'  Estate,  54  Cal.  509,  1133 

Toomey  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  3  C. 

B.  (N.S.)146,  1041,1050 

Tootle  V.  Clifton,  22  Ohio  St.  247, 

S.  C.  10  Am.  R.  732,  1172 

Topeka,   City   of,  v.   Boutwell, 

(Kan.)  35  Pac.  R.  819,        1087,  1088 
Topeka,  City  of,  y.  Heitman,  47 

Kan.  739,  S.C.  28  Pac.  R.  1096,     1080 
Topeka  y.  Martineau,  42  Kan.  387, 

S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  775,  814 

Topeka,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Roberts,  45 

Kan.  360,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.854,      483 
Topling  y.  Jones,  11  H.  L.  Cas. 

290,  483 

Toplitz  y.  Hedden,  146  U.  S.  252, 

S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  70,  712,  799 

Torian  v.  McClure,  83  Ind.  310, 

365  395 
Totten  V.  Bucy,  57  Md.  446,  '  503 

Totten  V.  Burhans,  91  Mich.  495, 

S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  1119,  1229 

Touchard  v.  Crow,  20  Cal.  150,  1224 
Tourtelot  V.  Tourtelot,  4  Mass.  506,  620 
Tourtelotte  y.  Brown,  1  Col.  App. 

408,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  Rep.  130,  782 

Tower  y.  Haslam,  84  Me.  86,  S.  C. 

24  Atl.  R.  587,  1064 

Tower  y.  Lamb,  6  Mich.  362,  346 

Tower  y.  Moore,  52  Mo.  118,  333 

Tower  y.  White,  10  Paige  395,  1185 
Towle  y.  Leacox,  59  la.  42,  182 

Town  y.  Green,  32  Kan.  148,  1048 

Town  y.  Waldo,  62  Vt.  118,  S.  C. 

20  Atl.  R.  325,  570, 571 

Town  of  Albion  v.  Hetrick,  90  Ind. 

545,  1107 

Town  of  Cherry  Creek  y.  Becker, 

123  N.  Y.  161,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R. 

369,  165,  324 

Town  of    Cicero  v.   Williamson, 

91  Ind.  541,  202 

Town  of  Coloma  y.  p]aves,  92  U. 

S.  484,  134,  165,  324 

Town  of  Duanesburg  y.  Jenkins, 

40  Barb. 574,  324 

Town  of  Enfield  y.  Jordan,  119  U. 

S.  680,  1177 

Town  of  Freedom  y.  Norris,  128 

Ind.  377,  1106,1097.1147 

Town  of  Geneya  y.  Cole,  61  111. 

397,  143 

Town  of  Griswold  y.  North  Ston- 

ington,  5  Conn.  367,  582 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxv 


\_References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Town  of  Lewiston  v.  Proctor,  23 

111.  483,  217 

Town   of    Liberty  v.   Burns,   114 

Mo.  420,  S.  C.  21  S.  VV.  R.  728,     1144 
Town  of    Lyons  v.  Cooledge,  89 

111.  529,  321 

Town  of  Mentz  v.  Cook,  108  N. 

Y.  504,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  541, 

239,  324,  345,  1130 
Town  of  Ottawa  V.Walker,  21  111. 

005,  258 

Town  of  Poseyville  v.  Lewis,  126 

Ind.  80,  1097 

Town  of   Springport  v.  Teutonia 

Bank,  84  N.  Y.  403,  134 

Town  of  Whitehall  v.  Keller,  100 

Pa.  St.  105,  S.  C.  45  Am.  R.  301,     207 
Townsend  v.  Briges,  99  Cal.  481, 

S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  307,  810 

Townsend  v.  Brooks,  5  Cal.  53,       250 
Townsend  V.  Griffin,  4  Harr. (Del.) 

440,  289 

Townsend  v.  Jemison,9  How.  (U. 

S.)  407,  373 

Townsend  v.  Little,  109  U.  S.  504, 

S.  C.  3  Sup.  Ct.  R.  357,  549 

Townsend  v.  Masterton,  15  N.  Y. 

587,  207 

Townsend  v.  Smith,  47  Wis.  623, 

S.  C.  32  Am.  R.  793,  458 

Townsend  v.  State,  132  Ind.  315, 

S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  797,  1169 

Townsend  v.  Tallant,  33  Cal.  45, 

S.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  017,  447,  448 

Townsend  v.  Townsend,   7   Gill. 

(Md.)  10,  675 

Townsend  v.  Townsend,  60  Mo. 

240,  255 

Townshend  v.   Wesson,   4  Duer, 

342,  1189 

Township   of  Buckeye  v.  Clark, 

90  Mich.  432,  S.  C.'51  N.  AV.  R. 

528,  352 

Township  of  Hartford  v.  Bennett, 

10  Ohio  St.  441,  1214 

Township  of  Hiawatha  v.  School 

Craft,  etc.,  90  Mich.  270,  S.  C. 

51  N.  W.  R.  282,  185,  187 

Township  of  North  Whitehall  v. 

Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105,  S.  C.  45 

Am.  Rep.  301,  564 

Townslev,     etc.,    Co.     v.    Fuller 

(Ark.j,22S.  AV.  R.  564,  329 

Tracy's  Case,  1  Paige  5S0,  289 

Tracey  v.  Altmyer,  40  N.  Y.  598, 

149,234,1164 
Traer  v.  Clews,  115  IT.  S.  528,   S. 

C.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  155,  367 

Truer  v.    Whitman,   56   la.    443, 

182,  318 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Train  v.  Holland,  etc.,  Co.,  62  N. 

Y.  598,  1045 

Trammell   v.   Hudmon,    86   Ala. 

472,  505 

Trammell  v.  ^Slount,  08  Tex.  210, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  479,  723 

Trapnell  v.  Red  Oak  Junction,  76 

la.  744,  S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.884,      534 
Trash   v.    White,  3  Brown's  Ch. 

289,  386 

Trask  v.  Key,  4  Greene  (la.)  372,  453 
Travelers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Leeds,  38 

Ind.  444,  1239 

Travers  v.  Jennings  (S.  Car.),  17 

S.  E.  R.  840,  511 

Trawick  v.  Martin,  etc.,  74  Tex. 

522,  S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  216,  1228 

Trawick  y.  Trawick,  67  Ala.  271,  218 
Traynor     v.    Johnson,    1    Head. 

(tenn.)  51,  556 

Treadway  y.  Andrews,  20  Conn. 

384,  470 

Treadway  y.Eastburn,57Tex.209,  451 
Treadway  v.  Nicks,  3  McCord  (S. 

Car.)  195,  411 

Treadwell  y.  Dayis,  34  Cal.  601, 

S.  C.  94  Am.  Dec.  770,  1134 

Treasurer,  etc.,  y.  Martin  (Ohio), 

33  N.  E.  R.  1112,  343 

Treat  y.  Hiles,  75  Wis.  265,  1183 

Treat  y.  Hiles,  77  Wis.  475,  S.  C. 

44  N.  W.  R.  1088,  1137 

Treat  y.  Lord,  42  Me.  552  1005 

Trebilcock  y.   Wilson,   12   Wall. 

687,  1192 

Treffert  y.  Ohio  &  M.  Ry.  Co.,  36 

111.  App.  93,  1096 

Treftz  y.  Stahl  (111.  App.),  18  L. 

R.  A.  500,  453 

Treishel  y.  McGill,  28  111.  App. 68,  173 
Tremper  y.  Brooks,  40  Mich.  333,  471 
Trenholm  y.  Morgan,  28   S.  Car. 

208,  S.  C.  5  S.  E.  R.  721,        201,  332 
Trenor  y.  Cent.  Pac.  R.  R.,  50  Cal. 

222,  663 

Trenouth  y.  Farrington,  54  Cal. 

273,  368 

Trentman  y.  Eldridge,  98  Ind.  525, 

1132,  1144 
Trentman  v.  Wiley,  85  Ind.  33,  1090 
Trenton,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Johnson,  24 

N.  J.  L.  570.  719 

Tresca  y.  Maddox,  11  La.   Ann. 

200,  S.  C.  0(>  Am.  Dec.  198,         1100 
Trew  V.  Gaskill.  10  Ind.  205,  1197 

Trexler  y.  Mewson.  88  N.  Car.  13,  488 
Trezevant  y.  Rains,  85  Tex.  329, 

S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  507,  558 

Tribbv  v.  Wokee,  74  Tex.  142,  S. 

C.  11  S  W.  R.  1089,  378 


cclxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Trice  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  35 

Mo.  410,  178,  819 

Trickey  v.  Schladder,  52  111.  78,      347 
Tries  V.  Couwav,  Hemp.   (U.  S. 

7ll,  ■  336 

Trigg  V.  Taylor,  27  Mo.  245,  110 

Trigg  V.  Trigg  (Tex.),  18  S.  W.  R. 

313,  201 

Triggs  V.  Jones,  46  Minn.  277,  S. 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  1113,  1206 

Trimble  v.  Pollock,  77  Ind.  576.      1030 
Trimyer  v.  Pollard,  5  Gratt.  (Va.) 

460,  375 

Triplett  v.  Micou,  1  Rand.  (Va.) 

269,  1116 

Tripp  V.  Brownell,  2  Gray  402,        172 
Tripp  V.  Cook,  26  Wend.  143,  176 

Tripp  V.  Pulver,  2  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

511,  394 

Tritlipo  V.  Lacy,  55  Ind.  287, 

1097, 1173 
Trittipo  V.  Morgan,  99  Ind.  269,  1129 
Trogdon  v.  State,  33  Ind.  1,  1076 

Trope  V.  Kerns,  83  Cal.  553,  565 

Trope  V.  Saratoga  Assn.,  58  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  611,  626 

Trotter  v.  Neal,  50  Ark.  340,  S.  C. 

7  S.  W.  R.  384,  248 

Troup  V.  Hulburt,  10  Barb.  354,        397 
Troup  V.  Smith,  20  Johns.  33,  367 

Trousdale  v.  Anderson,  9    Bush 

(Ky.)  276,  383 

Trout  V.  Emmons,  29  111.  433,  S. 

C.  81  Am.  Dec.  326,  581 

Trout  V.  Small,  10  Ind.  380,  1231 

Trout  V.  West,  29  Ind.  51, 

1109,  1111,  1116,  1120 
Trout  V.   Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,   23 

Gratt.  619,  1025 

Trow  V.  Vermont  Cent,  R.  R.  Co., 

24  Vt.  487,  S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec. 

191,  546 

Trowbridge  v.  Holcomb,  4  Ohio 

St.  38,  389 

Trow  Citv  Directory  Co.  v.  Curtin, 

36  Fed".  R.  829,  528 

Troxel  v.  Vinton,  77  la.  90,  S.  C. 

41  N.  W.  R.  580,  548 

Troy  V.  Cheshire  R.  R.  Co.,  23  N. 

H.  83,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  177, 

369,  1171,  1209 
Trover  v.  Wood,  96  Mo.  478,  S.  C. 

10  S.  W.  R.  42,  448 

Truitt  V.  Baird,  12  Kan.  420,        1214 
Truitt  V.  Truitt,  38  Ind.  16, 

174,  632,  633 
Truitt  V.  Truitt,  37  Ind.  514,  1089 

Trullenger  V.  Todd,  5  Ore.  36,    342,  438 
Truman  v.  Scott,  72  Ind.  258,  514 

Truinble  v.  Williams,  18  Neb'.  144,   241 


.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Trunibo  v.  City,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Va. 

780,  S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  124,  1168 

Truro  v.  Atkins,  122  Mass.  418,  1046 
Truscott  V.  King,  6  N.  Y.  147, 

261,  1130 
Trussell  v.  Scarlett,  18  Fed.  R.  214,  715 
Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  213,  220 
Trustees  v.  Greenough,  105  U.  S. 

527,  1181 

Trustees  v.  Kirk,  68  N.  Y.  459,  1045 
Trustees,  etc.,  v.  Odlin,  8  Ohio  St. 

293,  1211,  1213 

Tscheider  v.  Biddle,  4  Dill.  55,  587, 588 
Tube  V.  Et)er,  19  Ind.  126,  1110 

Tuchband  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  115  N.  Y.  437,  441 

Tucker  v.  Allen,  47  Mo.  488,  233,  592 
Tucker  v.  Atkinson,  1  Humph.  300,  197 
Tucker  v.  Bitting,  32  Pa.  St.  428,  1034 
Tucker  V.  Carpenter,  Hempst.  440,  491 
Tucker  v.  Harris,  13  Ga.  1,  S.  C. 

58  Am.  Dec.  488,  316 

Tucker  v.  Henniker,  41 N.  H.  317, 

820,  821,  823 
Tucker  v.  Jones,  8  Mont.  225,  S. 

C.  19Pac.  R.571,  1224 

Tucker  v.  Kenniston,  47  N.  H.  267, 

S.  C.  93  Am.  Dec.  425,  485 

Tucker  v.   New  Brunswick,  etc., 

Co.,  L.  R.  44  Ch.  Div.  249,  187 

Tucker  v.  Page,  69  111.  179,  599 

Tucker  v.  Sandridge,  82  Va.  532,  1182 
Tucker  v.  Sellers,  130  Ind.  514,  S. 

C.  30  N.E.  R.  1085,    165,  240, 324,  484 
Tucker  v.  Smith,  68  Tex.  473,  S.  C. 

3  S.  W.  R.  671,  1224 

Tucker  v.  Welsh,  17  Mass.  160, 

516,  800 
Tucker  v.  White,  19  Ind.  253,  1203 
Tudor  V.  Scovell,  20  N.  H.  174,  595 
Tuggle  V.  Minor,  76  Cal.  96,  382 

Tuigg  V.  Treacy,  104  Pa.  St.  493,  1106 
Tully  V.  Bauer,  52  Cal.  487,  449 

Tully  V.  Fitchburg  R.  R.  Co.,  134 

Mass.  499,  1051 

Tuomey  v.  O'Reilly,  etc.,  Co.,  22 

N.  Y.  Supp.  930,  721 

Turbervil  v.  Stamp,  2  Salk.  647,  1163 
Turgeau  v.  Brady,   24  La.    Ann. 

349,  195,  496 

Turnbull  v.  Ellis,  35  Ind.  422,  1231 
Turnbull  v.  Martin,  37  How.  Pr. 

20,  599 

Turnbull  v.  Richardson,  69  Mich. 

400,  S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  499,  741 

Turnbull  v.  The  Lumber  Co.,  55 

Mich.  387,  S.  C.  21   N.  W.  R. 

375,  195, 496 

Turner  v.  Althaus,  6  Neb.  54,  117,  170 
Turner  v.  Baker,  64  Mo.  218,  551 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Turner  v.  Billagram,  2  Cal.  520, 

300,  345 
Turner  v.  City  of  Newburgli,  109 

N.  Y.  301,  549,  553 

Turner  v. Commonwealth,  2  Metcf. 

(Ky.)  019,  224 

Turner  v.  Conkey,  132  Ind.  248, 

12(3,  133,  134,  239,  242 
Turner  v.  Cool,  23  Ind.  SO,  677 

Turner  v.  Davis,  1  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

151,  521 

Turner  v.  Eustis,  8  Ark.  119,  622 

Turner  v.  Fendall,  1  Cr.  117,  196,  197 
Turner  v.  First  National  Bank,  26 

la.  5G2,  255,  1213 

Turner  v.Goulden,  L.R.9C.P.57,  573 
Turner  v.  Hall,  60  Mo.  271,  551 

Turner  v.  Hitchcock,  20  la.  310,  639 
Turner  v.  Jenkins,  "^  111.  228,  315 
Turner  v.  Maione,  24  S.  Car.  398,  128 
Turner  v.  Parry,  27  Ind.  163,  404 

Turner  v.  People,  33  Mich.  363, 

1206,  1220 
Turner  v.  Plowden,  2  Gill  &  J. 

455,  301 

Turner  v.    Plowden,  5  Gill  &  J. 

52,  S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  596,  1177 

Turner  v.   State,  4   Lea    (Tenn.) 

206,  820,  823,  1074 

Turner  v.  Turner,  44  Ala.  437,  289 
Turner  v.  White,  73  Cal.  299,  S. 

C.  14  Pac.  R.  794,  529 

Turner  v.  Yates,  16  How.  (U.  S.) 

14,  1218, 1224 

Turney  v.  Dibrell,  3  Baxter,  235,  214 
Turney    v.    State,  8     Smedes   & 

Marsh  (Miss.)  104,  S.  C.  47  Am. 

Dec.  74,  725,  736,  737 

Turnley  v.  Hanna  (Ala.),  2 So.  R. 

483,  513 

Turnock  v.  Sartoris,  L.  R.  43  Ch. 

D. 150,  574 

Turnpike  Co.  v.  Baily,  37  0hioSt. 

104,  810 

Turnpike  Road  Co.  v.  Loomis,  88 

Am.  Dec.  311,  782 

Turnpike  Road  v.  Wilson,  3  Cai. 

(N.  Y.)  127,  627 

Turnstall  v.  Hamilton,  8  Mo.  500,  620 
Turpin  v.  Dennis,  139  111.  274,  S. 

C.  28  N.  K.  H.  1065,  341 

Tuskaloosa  Bridge  v.  Jemison,  33 

Ala.  476,  581,592 

Tuskaloosa  County  v.  Logan,  50 

Ala.  503,  1235 

Tuthill  V.  Morris,  81  N.  Y.  94,  402 
Tutt  V.  Price,  7  INIo.  App.  194,  542 
Tweed  V.  Davis,  4  T.  ct  C.  1,  1242 

Twentv-eierhth  Street,  In  re,  102 

Pa.  St.  140,  337 


.  1-00'J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  GUS-1-J44.] 
Two  Hundred  Chests  of  Tea,  9 

Wheat.  430,  277 

Twombly   v.   Monroe,  136  Mass. 

464.  539 

Twomey  v.  Linnehan  (Mass.),  36 

N.  E.  R.  590,  1122 

Two  Rivers,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beyer,  74 

Wis.  210,  S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R. 

131,  336 

Tyerman  v.  Smith,  6  E.  &  B.  719,  262 
Tyler  v.   Chesapeake,   etc.,   Co., 

88  Va.  389,   S.  C.   13  S.  E.  R. 

975,  1069 

Tyler  v.  Davis  (Cal.),  31  Pac.  R. 

1125,  1145 

Tyler  V.  Dyer,  13  Me.  41,  677 

Tyler  v.  Peatt,  30  Mich.  533,  428 

Tyler  v.  People,  8  Mich.  320,  308 

Tyler  v.  Safford,  24  Kan.  580,  469 
Tyler  V.  W^addingham,  58   Conn. 

•375,  S.  C.  8  L.  R.  A.  657,  526, 1146 
Tyler  v.  Wilkinson,  10  Ind.  53,  1217 
Tylor  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  370,  299 
Tynan  v.  Tate,  3  Neb.  388,  577 

Tyner  v.  Peoples'  Gas  Co.,  131  Ind. 

277,  482 

Tyng  v.  Gwinnell,  92  U.  S.  467,  1146 
Tyre  v.  Morris,  5  Harr.  (Del.)  3,  678 
Tyrell  v.  Roundtree,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

464,  468 

Tyrrell  v.Lockhart,  3  Blackf .  136,  1112 
Tysen  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Biss. 

247,  494 

Tyson   v.   Robinson,  3   Ired.  (N. 

Car.)  333,  585,586 

Tyson  v.  Tyson,  100  N.  Car.  360, 

1143,  1207 


u 


Udall   V.  School  District,   48  Vt. 

588,  473 

Udderzook  v.  Com.,  76  Pa.  St.  340, 

8,30 
Ufford  V.  Spaulding,  156  Mass.  65, 

30  N.  R.  360,  545 

Uhe  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  (S. 

Dak.),57  N.  W.  R.484,  1078 

Uhl  V.  Com.,  6  Gratt.  (Va.)  706,      803 
Uhl  V.  Harvey,  78  Ind.  26,  1090 

Uhle  v.  Buriiham,  44  Fed.  Rep. 

729,  514 

Uhlfelder  v.  Lew,  9  Cal.  607,         299 
Uline  V.  N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co., 

101  N.  \'.  98,  370 

Ulmer  v.  Austill,  9  Port.  (Ala.) 

157,  508 

Ulmer  v.  State,  14  Ind.  52,  153 

Ulrich  v.  Hervev,  76  Ind.  107,       1210 


cclxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 

XJlrich  V.  People,  39  Mich.  245, 

660,  812 
Umitilla,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barnbart,  22 

Ore.  389,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  37,  113G 
Umlauf  V.  Umlauf,  128  111.  378,  290 
Uiuierhill  v.  Dennis,  9  Paige  202,  224 
rndeihill  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  Co.,  40 

111.  App.  21,  1168 

Underwood  v.  McVeigh,  23  Gratt. 

409,  336 

Unfried   v.    Baltimore,  etc.,  Co., 

34  W.  Va.  260,  S.  C.  12  S.    E. 

Rep.  512,  666 

Unger  v.  Forty-second  St.  R.  R. 

Co.,ol  N.Y.  497,  1052 

Union  Bank  v.  Harrison,  12  Neb. 

499,  373 

Union   Bank  v.  Hevward,  15   S. 

Car.  296,  "  536 

Union  Bank  v.  Knapp,  3  Pick.  96, 

S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  181,  362 

Union  Bank  v.  Mott,  27  N.Y.  633,     352 
Union  Bank  v.  Munster,  57  L.  J. 

(N.  S.)  124,  47 

Union  Bank  v.  Stafford,  12  How. 

(U.  S.)  327,  377 

Union   Bank  v.  Willis,   8   Mete. 

(Mass.)  504,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec. 

541,  393 

Union   Central  Life   Ins.    Co.  v. 

Cheever,  36  Ohio  St.  201,  S.  C. 

38  Am.  R.  573,  820,  823 

Union   Central   Life   Ins.  Co.  v. 

Curtis,  35  Ohio  St.  357,  392 

Union   Central    Life   Ins.  Co.  v. 

Schidler,  1.30  Ind.  214,  S.  C.  15 

L.  R.  A.  89,  353 

Union  Coal  Co.  v.  Edman,  16  Col. 

438,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1060,  797 

Union  County  v.  Smith,  34  Ark. 

684,  1157 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Traube,  59  Mo. 

355,  1177 

T'nion,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Moore, 

80  Ind.  458,  697 

Union  Gold,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Rocky 

Mountain,   etc..    Bank,   2   Col. 

565,  662 

T'nion  Mut.Ins.  Co.  v.  Buchanan, 

100  Ind.  63,  20,  207,  565,  1075 

Union  Nat.  Bank  v.  Baldenwick, 

45  111.  .375,  556 

Union  Nat.  Bank  v.  Kupper,  63 

N.  Y.  617,  1139 

Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mertes, 

35  Neb.  204,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R. 

1099,  1048 

Union  Pac.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Botsford, 

141  U.  S.  250,  S.  C.  11  Su]..  Ct. 

R.IOOO,  810 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.    DeBusk, 

12  Col.  294,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R. 

221,  454,604,609 

Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fray,  35 

Kan.  700,  1092 

Union  Pac.  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hor- 
ner, 5  Kan.  340,  1131 
Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hutchin- 
son, 40  Kan.  51,  1160 
Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jarvi,  53 

Fed.  R.  65,  1065 

Union  Pac.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Reese,  56 

Fed.  R.  288,'  799 

Union  Savings  Bank  v.  Fife,  101 

Pa.  St.  388,  1139 

Union  Stock  Yards  Co. v.  Conover, 

38  Neb.  — ,  S.  C.  56  N.  W'.  R. 

1081,  1056 

Unis  V.  Charlton,  12  Gratt.  (Va.) 

484,  801 

United  Lines,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grant, 

137  N.  Y.  7,  32  N.  E.  R.  1005,       478 
United   States  v.    Alexander,   46 

Fed.  R.  728,  214,  235 

United  States  v.   American  Bell 

Telephone  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  17,      443 
United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet. 

691,  241,370 

United  States  v.  Babcock,  3  Dill. 

C.  Ct.  571,  503 

United  States  v.  Badeau,  31  Fed. 

R.  697,  532 

United  States  v.  Barrels  of  High 

Wines,  8  Blatchf.  475,  785 

United  States  v,  Beebee,  17  Fed. 

R. 36,  376 

United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat. 

336,  307 

United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S. 

306,  170 

United  States  v.  Boisdore's  Heirs, 

8  How.  113,  296 

United  States  v.  Borger,  7  Fed.  R. 

193,  655,  663 

United     States   v.    Breitling,    20 

How.  (U.  S.)  252,  718,  1217 

United     States     v.    Brig    Malek 

Adhel.  2  How.  210,  271 

United  States  v.  Brown,  40  Fed. 

R.  457,  798 

United  States  v.  Carev,  110  U.  S. 

51,  '  1218,1236 

United  States  v.  Coolidge,  2  Gall. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  364,  723 

United  States  v.  Cornell,  2  Mason 

91,  258 

United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92 

U.  S.  542,  303 

United  States  v.  Dawson,  15  How. 
(U.S.)  467,  309,336 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


cclxix 


[References  are  to  Payes,  Vol.  l,pp.  l-tjtj-j,  Vol.  II,  ]>p.  fJOo-1244.] 


United  States  v.  Des  Moines,  etc., 

Co.,  142  U.  S.  510,  171 

United    States    v.    Dickinson,    2 

McLean  325,  "80 

United  States  v.  Duff,  (>  Fed.  Rep. 

45,  5U<),  063 

United  States  v.  Duluth,  1  Dill. 

469,  480 

United  States  v.  Eighty-four  Boxes 

of  Sugar,  7  Pet.  453,  277 

United  States  v.  Evans,  5  Cranch 

(U.  S.)  280,  1049 

United    States    v.    Farragut,    22 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  40,  212 

United  States  v.Ferreira,  13  How. 
■  (U.  S.)  40(j,  602 

United  States  v.  Field,  16  Fed.  R. 

778,  308 

United  States  v.   Fox,  94  U.  S. 
(••315,  275 

United  States  v.  Gale,  109  U.  S. 

65,  1171 

United  States  v.  Gilbert,  2  Sumn. 

(U.  S.)  19,  742 

United  States  v.  Gomez,  1  "Wall. 

690,  1203 

United  States  v. Gordon,  5  Blatchf. 

18,  307 

United  States  v.   Gough,  8  Utah 

428,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  695,  1078 

United  States  v.  Grush,  5  ]Mason 

290,  307 

United  States  v.  Gundy,  3  Cranch 

337,  278 

United  States  v.  Guthrie,  17  How. 

(U.  S.)  248,  251 

United  States  v.  Hall,  44  Fed.  R. 

883,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  323, 

664,  795,  1059 
United   States  v.  Harding,  Wall. 

Jr.  127,  1240 

United   States    v.   Harminson,   3 


Saw.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  556, 


United  States  v.  Jellico,  etc.,  Co., 

46  Fed.  K.  432,  S.  C.  12  L.  R.  A. 

753,  1127,  1129 

United   States  v.   Kirbv,  7  Wall. 

482,  '  965,  966 

United  States  v.  Labette  County, 

7  Fed.  R.  318,  341 

United    States    v.    Lancaster,  44 

Fed.  R.  896,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A. 

333,  1059 

United  States  v.  La  Vengeance,  3 

Dall.297,  277,278 

United  States  v.Leffler,ll  Pet.86,  1194 
United  States  v.  Lehman,  39  Fed. 

R.  49,  164 

Uniteil  States  v.  ]Magill,  1  Wash. 

C.  C.  4()3,  307 

United  States  v.  Marchant,  4  Ma- 
son 158,  664 
United    States    v.    McHenrv,    6 

Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  503,  662 

United   States    v.   McMasters,    4 

Wall.  680,  711,  1206 

United  States  v.  Miles,  2  Utah  19, 

S.  C.  103  U.  S.  304,  654 

United     States     v.     Nardello,    4 

Mackey  (D.  C.)  503,  646 

United     States    v.    Neverson,    1 

.^lackey  152,  178 

United  States  v.  Noelke,  17  Blatchf. 

554,  657 

United  States  v.  Pagliano,  53  Fed. 

R.  1001,  800 

United  States  v.  Parrott,  McAIl 

(U.S.)  447,  181,1210,1223 

United  States  v.  Perez,  9  Wheat. 

579,  1124 

United  States  v. Philadelphia, etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  113,  S.  C.  8 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  77,  1059 

United  States  v.  Phillips,  6  Pet. 

76,  332 


185    United  States  v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat. 


United  States  v.  Harper,  33  Fed. 

R.  471,  542 

United  States  v.  Hawkins,  10  Pet. 

125,  1154 

United  States  v.  Hood,  8  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  372,  S.  C.  19  Wash.  Law 

R.  21,  152,153 

United  States  v.Hoskins, 5  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  478,  309 

United    States    v.    Howiaml,     4 

AVheat.  108,  1128 

Unitetl    States   v.   Huckabee,   16 

AVall.  414,  249,  255,  342 

United  States  v.   Hudson,  7    Cr. 

32,  137 

United  States  v.  Jackalow,  1  Black 

484,  309.  5.33 


194,  307 

United  States  v.  Raum,  135  U.  S. 

200,  170 

United  States  v.  Reid,  42  Fed.  R. 

134,  812 

United  States  v.  Revburn,  6  Pe- 
ters 352,  503 
United  States  v.  Rilev,  5  Blatchf. 

204,  ■  821 

United  States  v.  Robeson,  9  Peters 

319,  406 

United   States  v.  Ross,  92  U.  S. 

281,  21.101,307 

United  States  v.  Seaman,  17  How. 

(U.  S.)  225,  251 

United   States  v.   Smith,   4   Dav 

(Conn.)  121,  781 


cclxx 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
United  States  v.  Stevens,  4  Wash. 

547,  307 

United  States  v.  Stone,  106  U.  S. 

525,  S.  C.  1  Sup.  Ct.  R.  287,        1211 
United    States    v.    Thompson,    1 

Suinn.  1(J8,  307 

United  States  v.  Throckmorton,98 

U.  S.  61,  251 

United  States  v.  Train,  12  Fed.  R. 

852,  1061,  1222 

United  States  v.  Turner,  50  Fed. 

R.  734,  431,  434 

United  States  v.  Tynen,  11  Wall. 

88,  338 

United  States  v.  Walker,  109  U.  S. 

258,  S.  C.  3  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.  R.  277; 

324,  338,  340 
United  States  v.  White,  5  Cranch 

C  C   73  781 

United  States  v.  Wilder,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  254,  382 

United  States  v.  Williams,  1  Ware 

(U.  S.  Dist.  Ct.)  175,  1027 

United  States  v.   Wiltberger,   5 

Wheat.  76,  307 

United  States  v.   Winchester,   2 

McLean  (U.  S.)  135,  414,  504 

United  States  v.  Winchester,  99  U. 

S.  372,  129 

United  States  v.  Wonson,  1  Galli- 

son  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  5,  1205 

United  States  v.  Wood  (Dak.),  33 

N.  W.  R.  59,  781 

United  States  v.Wyngall,5  Hill  16,  298 
United  States  v.  Yates,  6  How.  (U. 

S.)  606,  332,613,614 

United  States  Bank  v.  City  Bank, 

21  How.  (U.  S.)  356,  532 

United  States  Bank  v.  Homestead,  . 

18  N.  Y.  Supp.  758,  566 

United  States   Bank   v.   Moss,  6 

How.  31,  132 

United  States  Bank  v.  Smith,  11 

Wheat.  171,  1025,  1029 

United  States,  etc.,  v.  Jordan,  21 

Abb.  N.  Cas.  3.30,  186 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vocke, 

129  HI.  557,  796 

United   States    Life    Ins.  Co.   v. 

Wright,  33  Ohio  St.  533,  624 

United  States  Mnfg.  Co.  v.  Hen- 
derson, 111  Ind.  24,  567 
United  States  Mut.  Ace.  Assn.  v. 

Barry,  131  U.  S.  100,  534 

United  States  Tel.,  etc.,  v.  Grant, 

1.37  N.  Y.  7,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

1005,  484 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  New 

York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25  Fed. 

R.  800,  497 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
University  v.  State  Nat.  Bank,  96 

N.  Car.  280,  376 

Unruhv.State,105  Ind. 117,  1073, 1074 
Updegraff  v.  Palmer,  107  Ind.  181,  322 
Updike  V.  Dovle,  7  R.  I.  446,  200 

Upham  V.  Dodge,  11  R.  I.  621,  470 
Upper  Miss.  Transp.  Co.  v.  Whit- 
taker,  16  Wis.  220,  442,  608 
Upshaw  V.Hargrove,  14  Miss.286,  594 
Upson  V.  Raiford,  29  Ala.  188,  541 
Upton  V.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co., 

25  N.  J.  Eq.  372,  336 

Upton  V.  Paxton,  72  la.  295,  S.  C. 

33  N.  W.  R.  773,  164 

Upton  V.  Townsend,  33  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  212,  544 

Urbanski  v.  Manns,  87  Ind.  585,  190 
Urquhart  v.  Burleson,  6  Tex.  502,  508 
Urton  V.  Woolsey,  87  Cal.  38,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  154,  304 

Urtz  V.  Dale,  129  Ind.  120,  S.  C. 

27  N.  E.  R.  498,  1139 

Utica  Ins.  Co.  v.Caldwell,3  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  296,  506 

Utsey  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.  (S.  Car.),17S.  E.  R.  141,     626 


V 


Vail  V.  Dinning,  44  Mo.  210,  256,  337 
Vail  V.  Iglehart,  69  111.  332,  181, 1223 
Vail  V.Owen,  19  Barb.  (N.Y.)  22,  427 
Vaisev.Delaval,lT.R.  11,  1118,1124 
Valderes  v.  Bird,  10   Rob.  (La.) 

396,  318 

Valentine  v.  Valentine,  2  Barb. 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  430,  594 

Valle  V.  Picton,  91  Mo.  207,  S.  C. 

3  S.  W.  R.  860,  618 

Valle  V.  Railroad  Co.,  37  Mo.  445, 

594,  600 
Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hogan,  85  Wis. 

366,  S.  C.  55  N.  W.  R.  415,  1150 

Valley  Ry.  Co.  v.  Franz,  43  Ohio 

St.  623,  370 

VanAernman  v.Winslow,37  Minn. 

514,  452 

VanAlstyne  v.  Cook,  25  N.Y.  489,  495 
Van  Antwerp  v.  Stewart,  8  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  125,  586 

Vanauken's  Case,  2  Stock.  (N.  J.) 

186,  289 

Van   Benthuysen  v.    Crapser,    8 

Johns.  257,  389 

Van  Bokelen  v.  Berdell,  130  N.  Y. 

141,  798 

Van  Brocklen  v.  Smeallie,  140  N. 

Y.  70,  74,  980 

Van  Brown  v.  State,  34 Tex.  186,      622 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cclxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Van  Riiren  v.  Wells,  19  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  L'03,  706 

Vance  v.  Field,  89  Ky.  178,  S.  C. 

12  S.  W.  R.  190,  640 

Vance  v.  State  (Ark.),  19  S.  W. 

Rep.  10(i(),  600 

Vance  v.  Vance,  108  U.  S.  514,        379 
Vance  v.  Wood,  22  Ore.  77,  S.  C. 

29  Pac.  R.  73,  371 

Van   Cleaf    v.    Burns,  133   N.  Y. 

540,  S.  C.  30N.  E.  R.  661,  289 

Vancleave  v.  Beam,  2  Dana(Ky.) 

155,  679 

Van  Courtlandt  v.  Underbill,  17 

Johns.  405,  408,  601 

Vandekarr  v.  State  51Ind.  91,         182 
Vandereook  v.  Williams,  106  Ind. 

345,  213 

Vanderhevden     v.     Young,     11 

Johns.  ioO,  165,  323 

Vanderkemp  v.  Shelton,  11  Paige 

28,  363 

Vanderpoell  v.  Van  Valkenburg, 

6  N.  Y.  190,  274 

Vanderslice  v.  Matthews,  79  Cal. 

273,  378 

Vandervecker  v.  Vermont  Central 

R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  130,  408 

Vandeveer  v.  llolcomb,  17  N.  J. 

Eq.  547,  253 

Vandever   v.   Vandever,   3   Met. 

(Ky.)  187,  232 

VanDeusen   v.   Pomeroy,   24  111. 

289,  1195 

Van  Dresser  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co., 

48  Fed.  R.  202,  441 

Vanduyn    v.    Hepner,     45    Ind. 

389,  371 

Vandyke  v.  State,  22  Ala.  57,  152 

Van  Eman  v.  Stanchfield,  8  Minn. 

518,  536 

Van  Epps  v.  Walsh.  1  Woods 598, 

116,  336 
Van  Etten  v.  Butt,  32  Neb.  285,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  365,  1230 

Van  Fossen  v.  State,  37  Ohio  St. 

317,  S.  C.  41  Am.  R.  507,  287 

Van  Gorden  v.  Jackson,  5  Johns. 

440,  1225 

Van  Gnnden  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co., 

52  Fed.  R.  838,  1066 

Van  1  look  v.  Walton,  28  Tex.  59,     548 
Van  Hook  v.  Whitlock,26  Wend. 

43,  343 

Van  Horn  v.  Great  Western  Mfg. 

Co.,  37  Kan.  523,  458 

Van  Horn  v.  Redmon,  67  la.  689, 

1167 
Van  Keuren  v.  Parmelee,  2  N.  Y. 

523,  384 


,  1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Van   i.,euven    v.    Lvke,    1    N.  Y. 

515,  "  351 

Vanmeter  v.  Vanmeter,  3  Gratt. 

148,  1187 

Vann  v.  Barnett,  2  Bro.  Ch.  158,  496 
Vannali  v.  C:arney,  69  .Me.  221,  595 
Vannatta  v.   Duffv,   4   Ind.   App. 

168,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  807,  823 

Vannerson  v.  Leverett,  31  Fed.  R. 

376,  1214 

Van  Ness  V.  Corkins,  12  Wis.  186,  1194 
Vannoy  v.  Klein,  122  Ind.  416, 

713,  1216 
Van  Orsdal  v.  Van  Orsdal,  67  la. 

35,  S.  C.  24  N.  W.  R.  579,     287,  292 
Van  Pelt  v.  Hurt  (Ga.1,  18  S.  E. 

R.  1016,  '  1047 

Van  Poucke  v.  Netherland,  etc.. 

Society  (Mich.),29  N.W.R.863,     588 
Van    Rensselaer    v.   Douglas,    2 

AVend.  (N.  Y.)  290,  639 

Van  Rensselear V.Emery, 9  How. 

Pr.  135,  194 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Jewett,  2  N.  Y. 

141,  395 

Van  Riper  v.  Baker,  44  la.  450, 

1142,  1146 
Van  Sickle  v.  Belknap,  129  Ind. 

558  407 

Vansittartv.  Taylor,  4  E.  &  B.  910,  262 
Van  Slyke  v.  Hyatt,  46  N.  Y.  259,  1146 
Van  Sivke  v.  Trempealeau,  etc., 

Co.,  39  Wis.  390,  S.  C.  20  Am. 

R.  50,  213,  216 

Van  Steenberg  v.Bigelow,3AVend. 

42,  165,  325 

Van   Steenburgh   v.    Hoffman,   6 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  492,  1116 

Van  Stoach  v.  Griffin,  71  Pa.  St. 

240,  285 

Van  Stone  v.  Mnfg.  Co.,  142  U.  S. 

128,  1222 

Van  Stone  v.  St  ill  well,  142  U.  S. 

128,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  181,      1170 
Van    Swearengen     v.    Harris,    1 

Watts  &  S.  356,  361 

Van  Svckels  v.  Perry,  3  Robt.  (N. 

Y.  Supr.)  621,        '  1050 

Van  Uxen  y.  Rose,  7  Ind.  222,  1160 
Vanvabry,  In  re,  88  Tenn.  334,  1242 
Van  Vactor  v.   Walkup,  46  Cal. 

124,  539 

Vanyeghten  v.  Howland,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  (N.  S.)  461,  489 

Van  Vliet  v.  Olin.  1  Ney.  495,  1046 
Van  Vorhis  y.  Brintnall,  86  N.  Y. 

IS.  S.  C.  40  Am.  R.  505,  292 

Van  Vranken  y.  I'nion  News  Co., 

78  Midi.  217,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R. 

337.  531,  532 


cclxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
A'an  Walters  v. Board  of  Children's 

Guardians,  132  Ind.  567,  S.  C. 

3-2  N.  E.  R.  56,  136,  137,  294 

Yanwey  v.  State,  41  Tex.  639,  1078 
Van  \Vormer  v.  iMayor,  18  AVend. 

(N.Y.)169,  1044,1049 

Yarii'k  v.  Jackson,  2  Wend.  166,  S. 

C.  19  Am.  Dec.  571,  517 

Yarner  v.  Kadcliff,  59  Ga.  448,  610 
Yarney  v.  Brewster,  14  N .  H.  49,  595 
Yarona  v.  Socarras,  8  Abb.  Pr. 

302,  798,  802 

Yasse  v.  Smith,  6  Cranch  (U.  S.) 

226,  374 

Yass  V.  Com.,  3  Leigh  (Ya.)  786, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  695,  1231 

Yater  v.  Lewis,  36  Ind.  288,  S.  C. 

10  Am.  R.  29,  1094,  1095 

Yattier  v.  Hinde,  7  Peters  (U.  S.) 

252,  513 

Yauehan  v.  Barclay,  6  Whart.  392,  283 
Yau^han  v.  Smith,  69  Ala.  92,  594 
Yaughan  v.  State,  57  Ark.  1,  S.  C. 

20  S.  W.  R.  588,  S.  C.  32  Am.  L. 

Reg.  641,  1075 

Yaughn  v.   California,   etc.,   Ry. 

Co.,  83  Cal.  18,  S.  C.  23  Pacific 

R.  215,  1095 

Yaughn  v.  Congdon,  56  Yt.  Ill,  242 
Yaughn  v.  Ferrall,  57  Ind.  182, 

1078,  1168 
Vaughn  v.O'Conner,12  Neb.478,  1162 
Vaughn  v.  Porter,  16  Yt.  266,  1065 
Vaughn  v.  State,  88  Ga.  731,  S.  C. 

16  S.  E.  Rep.  641,  653 

Vaught  V.  Rider,  86  Ya.  669,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  St.  R.  305,  618 

Vawter  v.  Griffin,  40  Ind.  593,  34 

Veach  v.  Rice,  131  U.  S.  293,  128 

Veatch  v.  State,  56  Ind.  584,  S.  C. 

26  Am.  R.  44,  1070 

Veatch  v.  State,  60  Ind.  291,  1115 

Yeats  V.  Danburv,  37  Conn.  412,  338 
Ve<lder  v.  Fellows,  20  N.  Y.  126,  546 
Veeder  v.  Baker,  83  N.  Y.  156,  627 
Velsian  v.  Lewis,  15  Ore.  539,  365 

Venable  v.  Curd,  39  Tenn.  582,  143 
Venable  v.  Dutch,  37  Kan.  515,  S. 

C.  15  Pac.  R.  520,  275 

Venable  V.  White,2  Head.  (Tenn.) 

582  164 

Venice  v.  Murdock,  92  U.  S.  494,  324 
Venneman  v.  McCurtain,  33  Neb. 

643,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  955,  1231 

Vere  v.  Lewds,  3  Term  R.  182,  1025 
Vermillion  v.Nelson,87  Ind.  194,  1230 
Vermilvea,  Ex  parte,  6  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)555,  662 

Vermont    Tp.   v.    Koons,   42  111. 

App.  454,  1212 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244. '\ 
Yernor  v.  Henry,  3  Watts  (Pa.) 

385,  537 

Yerplank  v.  Caines,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  57,  494 

Yerplanck  v.   Ins.  Co.,  2    Paige 

438,  195 

Yertrees  v.  Newport  News,  etc., 

R.R.Co.  (Ky.),  25  S.  W.R.I,    1049 
Vessel  Owners',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tay- 
lor, 126  111.  250,  S.  C.  18  N.  E. 

R.  663,  591,  601 

Vickery  v.  Board  of  Commission- 
ers, 134  Ind.  554,  S.  C.  32  N.  E. 

R.  880,  343 

Vickerv  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  89 

Ga.  365,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  464,  180 
Vickery  v.  Chase,  50  Ind.  461,  121 
Vicksburg  v.  Marshall,  59  Miss. 

563,  366 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Put- 
nam, 118  U.  S.  545,  1059 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Stock- 
ing (Mfss.),  10  So.  R.  480,  620 
Victor,  etc.,  Co.   v.  The  Justice, 

etc.,  Co.,  18  Nev.  21,  316 

Victoria,   etc.,   Co.    v.   Haws,    7 

Utah  515,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  695,  1133 
Vidal  V.  Commagere,  13  La.  Ann. 

516,  291 

Viele  V.  Germania  Ins.  Co.,  26  la. 

9,  S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec.  83,  669,  678 
Vierheller  v.  Brutto,  6  111.  App. 

95,  199 

Village  of  Alexandria  v.  Stabler, 

4  C.  C.  A.  324,  S.  C.  50  Fed.  R. 

689,  1032,  1033 

Village  of  Middletown,  Matter  of, 

82  N.  Y.  196,  425 

Village  of  Ponca  v.  Crawford,  18 

Neb.  551,  S.  C.  26 N.  W.  R.  365,  704 
Vincent  v.  Morrison,  Breeze  (111.) 

227,  1103 

Vines  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim.  R. 

31,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  Rep.  545,  S. 

C.  14  Crim.  L.  Mag.  728,  678 

Vinich,  Re,  86  Cal.  70,  S.  C.  26 

Pac.  R.  528,  458 

Vinton  v.  Baldwin,  95  Ind.  433,     1107 
Vinton  v.  Bradford,  13  Mass.  114, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  119,  198,  467 

Vinton  v.  Schwab,  32  Yt.  612,         1056 
Visalia  v.  Jacob,  65  Cal.  434,  S.  C. 

6  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  115,  366 
Visart  v.  Bush,  46  Ark.  153,  317 

Vischer  v.  Talbotton,  etc.,  Co.,  34 

Ga.  536,  236 

Vitrified,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Edwards,  135 

Mass.  591,  668 

Voelz  V.  Voelz,  80  Wis.  504,  S.  C. 

50  N.  W.  R.  398,  448 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxiii 


[References  are  to  ratjes,  Vul.  I,  pp 

Vogel  V.  Brown  Tp.,  112  Ind.  299, 

430,  1199 
Vogel  V.  State,  107  Ind.  374,  ^  379 
Voisin  V.  Commercial,  etc.,  Co., 

123  N.  Y.  120,  1134 

Von   Latham  v.  Libby,  38  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)339,  544 

Von  Rov  V.  Blackman,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.')  98,  439 

Von  Sachs    v.  Kretz,    72    N.  Y. 

548,  504 

Voorhees  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  71  la.  735,  618 

Voorhees  v.  Jackson,  10  Pet.  449, 

168,  240 
Voorhees   v.   Woodhull's    Exrs., 

33  N.  J.  L.  482,  1044 

Voorman  v.  Voight,  46  Cal.  392,  712 
Vocev.  Cockcroft,44N.Y.415,  111 
Voce  V.  Morton,  4  Cush.  27,  S.  C. 

50  Am.  Dec.  750,  128,  239,  609 

Voce  V.  Treat,  58  Me.  378,  565 

Vosler  V.  Brock,  84  Mo.  574,  322 

Voss  V.  Eller,  109  Ind.  2G0,  1157 

Votaw  V.  Diehl,  62  la.  676,  736 

Vrooman   v.    Griffiths,  40  N.  Y. 

(1  Keyes)  53,  728 

Vynior's  Case,  8  Coke  162,  585 

w 

Waarich  v.  Winter,  33  111.  App. 

36,  619 

Wabash,    etc.,    Co.    v.  Beers,    2 

Black  448,  1186 

Wabash,  etc..  Canal  v.  Beers,  1 

Black  54,  1184 

Wabash,   etc.,  Co.  v.   Dvkemah, 

133  Ind.  56,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  823, 

195,  1214 
Wabash,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  106 

111.  652,  1232 

Wabash,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Morgan, 

132  Ind.  430,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

85,  S.C.31N.E.  R.661,         515,1075 
Wabash,  St.  L.  &  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v. 

Tretts,  96  Ind.  450,  1089 

Wachstetter  V.  State,  99  Ind.  290,  783 
Wachter  v.  Famachon,  62  Wis. 

117,  465 

Waco  V.  Wheeler,  59  Tex.  554,  442 
Waddingham  v.  Dickson,  17  Col. 

223,  S.^C.  29  Pac.  R.  177,  1113 

Waddingham   v.   Ilulett,  92  Mo. 

528,  803 

Wade's  Case,  5  Coke  114a,  401 

Wade  V.  Bryant  (Ky.),  7  S.  W. 

R.  397,  1237 

R 


.  l-airj,   Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Wade  V.  DeLeyer,  8  J.  &  S.  (N. 

Y.)  541,  1201 

Wade  V.  Hancock,  76  Va.  620,  340 
Wade  V.  St.  Mary,  etc..  School,  43 

31.1.  178,  338 

Wade  V.  Thaver,  40  Cal.  578,  806 

Wadluims  v.  Gay,  73  111.  415,  5G4 

Wadluims  V.  Page,  0  Wash.  103, 

S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  10t)8,  1136 

Wadlington  v.Ne\vi)ort  News,  etc., 

Co.  (Kv.),  20  S.  W.  R.  783,         1052 
Wadsworth  v.  Smitii,  40  L.  J,  Q. 

V>.  118,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  332,  573 

Wafer  v.  Ilamill,  44  Kan.  447,  S. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  950,  1157 

Wagers  v.  Dickey,  17  Ohio  439,  S. 

C.  49  Am.  Dec.  467,  398 

Waggoner  v.  Alvord,  81  Tex.  365, 

S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  1083,  505 

Waggoner  v.  Folgeman,  53  Ark. 

181,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  729,  604 

Wagner  v.  Eagleston,   49  Mich. 

218,  539 

Wagner  v.  Tice,  36  la.  599,  636 

Wagoner    v.    Wilson,    108  Ind. 

210,  1236 

Wagstafl  V.  Schippel,27  Kan.  450,  544 
Wainright  v.  Burroughs,  1   Ind. 

App.  393,  1155 

Wait  V.  Maxwell,  5  Pick.  217,  S. 

C.  16  Am.  Dec.  391,  289 

Waite,  In  re,  99  N.  Y.  433,  284 

Waite  V.  Barry,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

377,  595 

Waite  V.  Osborne,  11  Me.  185,  471 
Wakefield  v.  Smithwick,  4  Jones 

L.  (N.  Car.)  327,  1067 

Wakeman  v.  Jones,  1  Ind.  517,  206 
AVakeman  v.  Sherman,  9  N.Y.  85,  383 
Walcott  V.  Walcott,  32  Wis.  63,  628 
Walcott  V.  Wells,  21  Nev  47,  S.  C. 

24  Pac.  R.  367,  9  L.  R.  A.  59, 

120,  164,  214,  215 
Walcott  V.  Wigton,  7  In<l.  44,  1175 
Waldheir  v.  Hannibal  li  St.  J.  R. 

Co.,  71  Mo.  514,  71,  1055 

Waldron    v.    Alexander,   35   111. 

App.  319,  365 

Waldron  v.  Evans,  1  Dak.  11,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  607,  631 

Waldron  v.  :\Iarsh,  5  Cal.  119,  484 
Waldron  v.  St.  Paul,  33  Minn.  87, 

513,  632 
Wales  V.  ^Muscatine,  4  la.  302,  472 
AValford  v.  Oaklev,  1  Sheldon  (N. 

Y.)  261,  "  1132 

Walkenhorst  v.  Lewis,  24  Kan. 

420,  275 

Walker,  In  re,  1  Lowell's  Dec.237,   312 


cclxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Walker,  Ex  parte,  25  Ala.  81,  494 

Walker  v.   Boston,   etc.,    Co.,   3 

Cash.  1,  425 

Walker  v.  Bradlev,  3  Pick.  261,  394 
Walker  v.  City  of  Aurora,  140  111. 

402,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  741,  557 

Walker  v.  City  of  Cincinnati,  21 

Ohio  St.  14,"  .  204 

Walker  v.  Clements,  15  Q.  B.  (N. 

S.)  1046,  376 

Walker  v.  Collins,  50  Fed.  R.  737,  6o6 
AValker  v.  Cook,  129  Mass.  577,  471 
Walker  v.  Crawford,  70  Ala.  567,  1187 
AValker  v.  Dailev  (la.),  54  N.  W. 

R.  344,  1064,  1110 

AValker  v.  Day,  8  Baxter  77,  277 

AValker    v.   Devereaux,    4  Paige 

229  487 

AA'alker  v.  Ducros,   18  La.  Ann. 

703,  172,  173,  298 

AValker  v.  Dunspaugh,  20  N.  Y. 

170,  737 

AValker  v.  Emerson,  20  Tex.  706,  386 
AValker  v.  Fields,  28  Ga.  237,  706 

AValker  v.  Goldsmith,  14  Ore.  125, 

S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  537,  314,  499 

AValker  v.  Goodrich,  16  111.  341,  362 
AValker  v.  Hale,  16  Ala.  26,  1169 

SVValker  v.  Heller,  56  Ind.  298,  1049 
Walker  v.  Heller,  73  Ind.  46, 

641,  1046,  1158 
AA^alker  v.  Hill,  111  Ind.  223,  380 

AValker  v.  House,  4  Md.  Ch.  39, 

195,  495 
AValker  v.  Larkin,  127  Ind.  100,  1212 
AValker  v.  Nettleton,  50  Minn.  305, 

S.  C.  52  X.  AV.  Rep.  864,  630 

AValker  v.  Owen,  79  Mo.  563,  110 

AValker  v.  Page,  21  Gratt.  636,  1192 
AValker  v.  Popper.  2  Utah  96,  1216 
AValker  v.  Ray,  111  III.  315,  377 

AValker  v.  Robinson,  136   Mass. 

280,  386 

AValker  v.  Sanborn,  3  Greenl.  288,  575 
AValker  v.  Sauvinet,  92  U.  S.  90,  642 
AValker  v.  Sawyer,  13  N.  H.  191,  1087 
AValker  v.  Sharpe,  103  Mass.  154,  412 
AValker  v.  Spencer,  86  N.  Y.  162,  254 
AValker  v.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  245,  809 
AValker  v.  State,  35  Ark.  386,  1170 
AValker  v.  State,  102  Ind.  502,  192 
AValker  V.  State,9  Tex.  App.  200,  1224 
Walker  v.  State,  37  Tex.  366,  1073 
Walker  v.  Steele,  121  Ind.  436, 

519,  1212,  1234 
Walker  v.  Supple,  54  Ga.  178,  1042 
AValker  v.  Turner,  27  Neb.  103,  S. 

C.  42  N.  AV.  R. 918,  612 

Walker  v.  AValker,  14  Ga.  242, 

179,  705,  790,  791 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
AValker  v.   AVindsor  Nat.  Bank, 

56  Fed.  R.  76,  1052, 1222 

AValkup  V.  Com.  (Ky.),  20  S.  AV. 

R.  221,  797 

AValkup  v.  Pratt,  5  Har.  &  J.(Md.) 

51,  719 

AA^all  V.  AVall,  2  Harr.  &G.  (Md.) 

79,  172 

AVall  V.  Wall,  123  Pa.  St.  545,  S. 

C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  549,  317 

AVall  V.  AVilliams,  11  Ala.  826,  738 
AVallace  v.  Agry,  4  Mason  (U.  S.) 

336,  555 

AVallace  v.  Barker,  8  Vt.  440,  467 

Wallace  v.  Bond,  4  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

536,  628 

AVallace  v.  Boston,  10  Mo.  660. 

1224,  1229 
AVallace  v.  Castle,  68  N.  Y.  370,  464 
AVallace  v.Douglas,105  N.Car.42,  1184 
AVallace  v.  Exchange  Bank,   126 

Ind.  265,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  175, 

1079,  1165 
AVallahanv.  Ingersoll,  117111. 123, 

S.  C.  7  N.  E.  R.  519,  429 

Wallace  v.  Harris,  32  Mich.  380, 

110,  1130 
AVallace  v.  Kirtley,  98  Ind.  485, 

1132, 1143 
AVallace  v.  Lawyer,  54  Ind.  501, 

S.  C.  23  Am.  R.  661,  472 

AVallace  v.  Loomis,  97  U.  S.  146,  1205 
Wallace  v.  McVey,  6  Ind.  300, 

479,  487,  488 
Wallace  v.  Small,  1  Moody  &  M. 

446,  569 

Wallace   v.    State,  9   Tex.  App. 

299  1074 

Wallace  v.  State,  28  Ark.  531,  790 
AVallace  v.  Taunton,  etc.,  Co.  119 

Mass.  91,  180 

Waller  v.  Bowling,  108  N.  Car. 

289,S.C.12L.A.R.261,        365,394 
AValler  v.  Logan,  5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

515  636 

AValler  V.  Shannon, 44  Conn.  480,  595 
Availing  v.  Beers,  120  Mass.  548,  612 
Availing  v.  Miller,  108  N.  Y.  173, 

S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  400,  493 

AVallingford  v.  Dunlap,  14  Pa.  St. 

31,  1102 

AValiis    V.   Carpenter,    13    Allen 

(Mass.)  19,  586,690 

AValiis  V.  Randall,  81  N.  Y.  164, 

712,  719,  1130,  1215 
Wallis  V.  Thomas,   7  Vesey  Jr. 

295,  190,  1244 

Walls,  Ex  parte,  73  Ind.  95,  1108 

AValls  V.  Anderson,  etc.,  Co.,  60 

Ind.  56,  1228 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxv 


[References  are  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wally's  Heirs  V.  Kennedy,2  Yerg. 

004,  121 
Walrath  v.  Viley,    1  Bush  (Ky.) 

2(J(1,  1234 

Walser  v.  Haley,  (11  M(j.  445,  254 

Walsli  V.  Campbell,  4!)  Kan.  104, 

5.  C.  30  Pae.  K.  17i»,  1025 
Walsh  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,   42 

Wis.  23,  955 

Walsh  V.Kelly,  40  N.Y.  (IHand.) 

550,  1079 

Walsh  V.  IMaver,  111  U.  S.  31,  373 
Walsh  V.  Muller  (Mont.),  35Pac. 

R.  226,  1103 

AValsh  V.  Porterfield,  87  Pa.  St. 

370,  789 

Walsh  V.  St.    Louis,  etc.,  Assn., 

101   Mo.  534,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R. 

722  404 

Walsh  V.  Walsh,  114  111.  655,  1200 
Walsh  V.  Walsh,  11  Bradw.  (111. 

App.)  199,  406 

AValston  v.  Walston  (Tex.),  24  S. 

W.  R.  951,  1113 

Walt  V.  Huse,  38  Mo.  210,  592 

Walter  v.  People,  32  N.  Y.  147,  658 
Walter  v.  Walter,  117  Ind.  247, 

640,  1202 
Walters  v.  Anglo-Am.,  etc.,  Co., 

50  Fed.  R.  316,  •   497 

Walters  v.  Hiitchins,  29  Ind.  136,  574 
Walters   v.   Junkins,  16   S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  414,  1122 

Walters  v.  Kraft,  23  So.  Car.  578,  384 
Walters  V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co. 

(Pa.),  28  Atl.  R.  941,  1071 

Walters  v.  Tefft,  57  Mich.  390,  S. 

C.  24  N.  W.  R.  117,  149,  234,  1147 
Walters  v.  Walters,  117  Ind.  247,  229 
AValton  v.  Bethune,  37  Ga.  319,  236 
AValton  v.  Develing,  61  111.  201,  346 
Walton  V.  State,  88  Ind.  9,  803 

Walton  V.  United  States,  9  Wheat. 

6.51,  1236 

Walton  V.  AVabash,  etc.,  Co.,  32 

Mo.  App.  634,  1025 

Walter  v.  Walter,  117  Ind.  247,  1220 
Walton  V.  Walton,  63  Vt.  513,  S. 

C.  22  Atl.  R.  617,  513 

Waltz  V.  Barroway,  25  Ind.  380,  319 
Walworth  v.  Seaver,  30  Vt.  728,  548 
Wamslev    v.    Robinson,    28   La. 

Ann.  79;].  259 

Wann   v.   Pattengale,  14   Pa.  St. 

318.  378 

Wannack  v.  Mayor,  53  Ga.  162,  1071 
Wanser  v.  Atkinson,  43  N.  J.  L. 

571,  668 

Wanzer  v.  Howland,  10  Wis.  8, 

165,  323 


.  J-(JO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Ward   V.  Albemarle,  etc.,   R.  R. 

Co.,  112  N.  Car.  168,  S.  C.  16  S. 

E.  R.  921,  1063 

Ward  V.  Arredundo,  1  Hopk.  Ch. 

213,  281 

Ward  V.  Bailey,  23  Me.  316,  1122 

Ward  V.  Berkshire  Life  Ins.  Co., 

108  Ind.  301,  1002 

Ward  V.  Busack,  46  Wis.  407,  1088 
Ward  V.  Clav,  82  Cal.  502,  S.  C. 

23  Pac.  R."50,  527,  1146 

Ward  V.  Davis,  3  Sandf.502,  1185 

Ward  V.  Dewev,  7  How.  Pr.  17,  488 
Ward  V.  Dick,  45  Conn.  235,  S.  C. 

29  Am.  R.  677,  697 

Ward  V.  Funsten,  86  Va.  359,  S. 

C.  10  S.  E.  R.  415,  1187 

Ward  V.  Harvev,  111  Ind.  471, 

362,  372 
Ward  V.  Hill,  4  Grav  593,  1128 

Ward  V.  Jewett,  4  Robt.  (N.  Y. 

Super.)  714,  692 

Ward  V.  Lowndes,  96  X.  Car.  367,  446 
Ward  V.  :\IcKenzie,  33  Tex.  297, 

S.  C.  7  Am.  R.  261,  468 

W' ard  V.  Reeder,  2  H.  &  M.  (Md.) 

145,  363 

Ward  V.  Thompson,  48  la.  588,  1109 
Ward  V.  Washington  Ins.  Co.,  6 

Bosw.  229,  719 

Ward  V.  Wilms,  16  Col.  86,  S.  C. 

27  Pac.  R.  247.  712,  1206,  1226 

Warden's  Estate,  57  Cal.  484,  291 

Warden  v.  Reser,  38  Kan.  86,  S. 

C.  16  Pac.  R.  60,  1091 

Warder  v.  Thrilkeld,  52  la.  134,  464 
Wardlaw  v.  Mayor,  137  N.  Y.  194,  558 
AVare  v.  Berlin,  43  La.  Ann.  534, 

S.  C.  9  So.  R.  490,  404 

Ware  v.  Henderson,  25  So.  Car. 

385,  113,  3.S2,  1214 

Ware'v.  Pennington, 15  Ark.  226,  1191 
Ware  v.  Percival,  61  ]\Ie.  391,  1176 
Ware  v.  Regents  Canal  Co.,  3  De 

Gex&.T.212,  482 

Ware  v.  Richardson,  3  Md.  505,  S. 

C.  50  Am.  Dec.  762,  1182 

Ware  v.  State,  74  Ind.  181,  364,  367 
Ware  v.  Todd,  1  Ala.  199,  436 

Ware  v.  Ware,  8  Me.  42, 

667,  679,  1059 
Warlick  v.  White,  76  N.  Car.  175,  808 
Warner  v.  Collins,  135  Mass.  26,  596 
Warner  v.  Graves,  25  Ga.  369,  1047 
Warnick  v.  Grosholz,  3  Grant  Cas. 

(Pa.)  234,  539 

Warner  v.  Jaffrav,  96  N.  Y.  248,  302 
Warner  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

52  X.  Y.  437,  S.  C.  11  Am.  R. 

7-'4,  1111,  1112,  1121 


cclxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Seferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  vp. 
Warner  v.  Norton,  20  How.  (U. 

S.)  448,  ^,  .     3-10 

Warner  v.  Railroad  Co.,  31  Ohio 

St.  265,  643 

Warner    v.    Robinson,    1     Root 

(Conn.)  194,  1118 

Warner  v.   Tiiompson,   35   Kan. 

27  536 

Warner  v.  Tomlinson,l  Root  201,   1188 
Warner  v.   United    States    Mut. 
Ace.  Assn.,  8  Utah  431,  S.  C.  32 
Pac.  R.  696,  1096 

Warner  V.  Warner,  11  Kan.  121,     1213 
Warrander  v.  AVarrander,  9  Bligh 

89,  307 

Warren  v.  Comings,  6  Cush.  103,    301 
Warren  v.  Crane,  50  :Mich.  300,  S. 

C.  15:N.  W.  R.465,  612 

Warren  v.  Gabriel,  51  Ala.  235,       796 
Warren  v.  Glynn,  37  N.  H,  340, 

235,  557 
Warren  v.  Hearne,  82  Ala.  554,  381 
Warren  v.  Litchfield,  7   Greenl. 

63,  1209 

Warren  v.  Slade,  23  Mich.  1,  379 

Warren  v.  Tinsley,  53  Fed.  R.  689,    593 
Warren  v.  Williams,  25  Mo.  App. 

22,  186 

Warrick,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Hougland, 

90  Ind. 115.  1139 

Warriner  v.  Mitchell,  128  Pa.  St. 

153,  S.  C.  18Atl.  R.337,  536 

Warring  v.  Hill,  89  Ind.  497,  375 

AVarsaw  v.  Dunlap,  112  Ind.  576, 

549,  554 
Wartena  v.  State,  105  Ind.  445,  178 
Washburn  v.  Allen,  77  Me.  344, 

1046,  1048 
Washburn  v.  Baldwin,  10  Phila. 

472,  1138 

Washburn  v.  Carmichael,  32  la. 

487,  274 

Washburn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  81  Wis.  251,  S.  C.  54  N.  W. 
Rep.  504,  784 

Washburn  V. Great West.,etc., Co., 

114  Mass.  175,  1176 

Washburn  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  59  Wis.  364,  S.  C.  18  N. 
W.  R.  328,  814 

Washburn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

41  Vt.  50,  473,  474 

Washburn  v.  The  Board,  104  Ind. 

321,  S.  C.  54  Am.  R.  3.32,  1029 

Washer  v.  Allensville,  etc.,  Co., 

81  Ind.  78,  149, 1207 

Washington  v.  State,  63  Ala.  135, 

S.  C.  35  Am.  R.  8,  526 

Washington  Ave.,  Matter  of,  69 
Pa.  St.  352,  S.  C.  8  Am.  R.  255,     108 


1-G02,  Vol.  II.  pp.  G03-I244.} 
Washington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alexan- 
dria, etc.,  Co.,  19  Gratt.  592,  S. 
C.  10  Am.  Dec.  710,  328 

Washington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bradleys, 

10  Wall.  299,  1128 

Washington  Ice  Co.  v.  Lay,  103 

Ind.  48,  181,  1212,  1223 

Washington  Glass  Co.  v.  Benja- 
min, 17  N.  Y.  Supp.  135,  S.  C. 
62  Hun  622,  1046 

Washington,  etc.,  R.    R.    Co.   v. 

McDade,  135  U.  S.  454,  546 

Washington  Street,  In  re,  132  Pa. 
St.  257,  S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  193,  S. 
C.  19  Atl.  R.  219,  170 

Waskern  v.   Diamond,   Hempst. 

701,  620 

Wassels  v.  State,  26  Ind.  30,  624 

Wassum  v.  Feeney,  121  Mass.  93, 

665,  666 
Water,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gildersleeve, 

4  N.  Mex.  171,  1170 

Waterbury  v.  Graham,  4  Sand. 

215,  1177 

Wate'rhouse  v.  Cousins,   40  Me. 

333,  165,  323 

Waterman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  82  Wis.  613,  S.  C.52  N.  W. 
R.  247,  720 

Waterman  v.  Dockray ,  79  Me.  149, 

S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  685,  434 

Waterman  v.  Johnson,  13  Pick. 

261,  34 

Waterman  v.  Lawrence,  19  Cal. 

210,  246,  342 

Waterman  v.  Sprague  Mfg.  Co., 

55  Conn.  554,  373 

Waters  v.  Carroll,  9  Yerg.  102,        193 
Waters  v.  Waters,  1  Mete.  (Ky.) 

519,  550 

Watertown  Bank  v.  Mix,  51  N.  Y. 

558,  1078,  1158 

Watk'ins,  Ex  parte,  3  Pet.  193, 

127,  132,  323 
Watkins  v.  Gayle,  4  Ala.  153,  435 

Watkins  v.  Holman,  16  Pet.  25, 

280,  281,303 
Watkins  v.  Mason,  11  Ore.  72,  1178 
Watkins  v.  Pinkney,  3  Edw.  Ch. 

533,  196 

Watkins  v.  Specht,  7  Coldw.  585,     373 
Watkins  v.  State,  37  Ark.  370, 

237,  1239,  1241 
Watkins  v.  State,  82  Ga.  231,  S.  C. 

14  Am.  St.  R.  155,  802,  803 

Watkins  v.Watkins,  125  Ind.  163,     287 
Watkins  v.  Weaver,  10  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  107,  665 

Watson    V.    Anderson,   1    Hard. 
(Ky.)  458,  1049 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cclxxvii 


[References  arc  to  Payes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
"Watson  V.  Blaine,  12  Serg.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  131,  537 

Watson  v.Blymer  Mfg.  Co.  (Tex.), 

2  S.  W.  R.  353,  622 

Watson  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  46 

Minn.  321,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 

1129,  ^    1092 

Watson  V.  Commonwealth,  85  Va. 

867,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  418,  182 

Watson  V.  Giklav,  11  Serg.  &  R. 

(Pa.)  337,  '  544 

Watson  V.  Iloag,  40  la.  143,  1142 

Watson  V.  McCartney,  1  Neb.  131,    431 
Watson  V.  Miller,  (iO  Tex.  175,  S. 

C.  5  S.  W.  R.  ()H0,  320 

Watson    V.    Pierpoint,    7    Mart. 

(La.)  413,  464 

Watson  V.  State,  28  Tex.  App.  34, 

S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  404,  1218 

Watson  V.  State,  63  Ind.  548,  667 

Watson  V.  Stromberg,  46  Mo.  App. 

630,  539 

Watson  V.  Sutherland,  5  Wall.  74, 

478,  481 
Watson  V.  Todd,  5  Mass.  271,  197 

Watson  V.  Thorns,  42  Mich.  561,     435 
Watson  V.  Ulbrich,  18  Neb.  186, 

S.  C.  24  N.  W.  R.  732,  444 

Watson  V.  Van  :\Ieter,  43  la.  76,     390 
Watson  V.  Whitney,  23  Cal.  375, 

350,  630,  662 
Watt  V.  Brookover,  35  W.  Va.  323, 

S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  R.  811,  206 

Watt  V.  People,  126  111.  9,  S.  C.  1 

L.  R.  A.  403,  307 

Wattv.  Pittman,  125  Ind.  168,  S. 

C.  25  N.  E.  R.  191,  392 

Watts  V.  Coxen,  52  Ind.  155,  1158 

Watts  V.Holland,  56  Tex.  54,     179,695 
Watts  V.  Overstreet,  78  Tex.  571, 

S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  704,  180 

Watts  V.  Sawver,  55  N.  H.  38,  738 

Watts  V.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  572, 

S.  C.  3  S.  AV.  R.  7B9,  146 

Watts  V.  Stoltz,  28  111.  App.  541,      637 
Watts  V.  AVaddle,  1  McLean  200, 

S.  C.  6  Pet.  389,  284,  302 

AVaueh  V.  Wansh,  84  Pa.  St.  350, 

S.  C.  24  Am.  Rep.  191,  9.55 

AVaugh  V.  AVangli.  47  Ind.  580         540 
AA'ansau  Boom  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  75 

AVis.    133,   S.   C.  43  N.    AV.   R. 

739,  075 

AA^ay  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  73  la. 

463,  1160 

Wav  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

35  la.  585,  1054 

Wav  V.  Lansley,  15  Ohio  St.  392,    567 
AVavman  v.^ Southard.  10  AAHieat. 

1 ,"  299 


1-CO'J,  Vol.  11,  pp.  00:J-1U44.'\ 
AVaymire  v.  Lank,  121  Ind.  1, 

1107,  1108,  1130,  1147,  1215 
AVayne  v.  Blun  (Ga.),  17  S.  E.  R. 

288,  1091 

AVayne  v.  Caldwell,  1  So.  Dak.  483, 

S.  C.  47  N.  \V.  R.  547,  115 

Wayne  v.  (Jreene,  21  Me.  357,  312 
AVayne  Pike  Co.  v.  Hammons,  129 

I  ml.  368,  153 

AVavne  Pike  Co.  v.  State,  ex   rel., 

Whitaker  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.    R. 

440,  493 

AVeadock  v.  Kennedy,  80  AVis.  449, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  393,  783 

AVeare  v.  AVilliams,  09  la.  252,  629 
Wearen  v.  Smith,  80  Ky.  216,  1183 
Wearne  v.  Haynes.  13  Nev.  103,  476 
AVeatherby  v,  Iliggins,  6  Ind.  73,  1100 
AA^'eatherford  v.   Shegag,   28  Ga. 

194,  138 

AVeaver  v.  Brown,  87  Ala.  533,  318 
AVeaver  v.  Carpenter,  42  la.  343,  448 
AVeaver  v.  Cooledge,  15  la.  244,  148 
AA'eaver  v.  Davis,  47  111.  235,  198 

AVeaver  v.  Jackson,  8  Blackf.  5,  434 
AVeaver  v.  Lapslev,  43  Ala.  224,  117 
AVeaver  v.  Nugent,  72 Tex.  272,  S. 

C.  10  S.  AV.  Rep.  458,  540 

AVeaver  v.  Owens,  16  Ore.  301,  S. 

C.  18  Pac.  R.  579,  540 

AVeaver  v.  Roberts,  84  N.  Car.  493,  452 
AVeaver  v.  State,  24  Ohio  St.  584,  178 
AVeaver  v.   Stone,  2  Grant  Cas. 

(Pa.)  422,  604 

AVeaver  v.  Templin,  113  Ind.  298, 

163,  202 
AVebb  V.  Bidwell,  15  Alinn.  479,  527 
AVebb  V.  State,  9  Tex.  App.  490,  696 
AVebb  V.  State,  29  Ohio  St.  351,  807 
AVebb  V.  Stevens,  14  Mo.  480,  1197 
AVebb  v.The  Portland  Alanf.  Co., 

3Sumn.  (V.  S.  C.  C.)  1S9,  391 

AVebb  V.  Zeller,  70  Ind.  408,  598 

Webber  v.  Hanke,  4  Alich.  198,  803 
Webber     v.    Houston,    6     Yerg. 

(Tenn.)  314,  558 

AVebber  v.  Alatthews,  101  Mass. 

481,  411 

AVeberv.  Anderson,  73  111.  439,  371 
AVeber  v.  Tiling,  66  AA'is.  79,  541 

AVeber  v.  Kansas  Citv  Cable  Rv. 

Co.,  100  Mo.  194.  S.  C.  18  Am. 

St.  R.  541,  1026.  1033,  1052,  lOSO 

Weber  v.  Alerrill,  34  N.  H.  202,  1111 
Weber  V.  AVeitling,3  (C.E.  Green) 

N.  J.  Eq.  441,  465 

AVeberlv   v.   Alatthews,  91  N.  Y. 

(HS,    ■  593 

AVebster  v.  Calden,  55  Ale.  165. 

800,  1224,  1232 


cclxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[lieferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
"Webster  v.  Lee,  5  Mass.  334,  597 

Webster  v.  Reid,  11  How.  437, 

289,  463 
Webster  v.  Tibbits,  19  Wis.  438,  1216 
Webster,   etc.,  Co.   v.   St.    Croix 

Co.,  63  Wis.  647,  1183 

Weed  V.  Barnev,  45  N.  Y.  344,  554 
AVeed  v.   Bowman,  82  la.  762,  S. 

C.  48X.  W.R.  808.  485 

AYeed  v.  Ellis,  3  Caines  (N.  Y.) 

253,  582 

Weed   V.  Halladav,  1  How.  Pr. 

(N.Y.)73,  ■  628 

Weed  V.  Lee,  50  Barb.(N.Y.)  354,  623 
Weed  V.  Weed,  25  Conn.  337, 

190,  1244 
Weed,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philbrick,  70 

Mo.  646,  178 

AVeeks  v.  Ellis,  2  Barb.  320,  232 

AVeeks  v.  Garibaldi,  etc.,  Co.,  73 

Cal.  599,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  302,  452 
Weeks  v.  Hull,  19  Conn.  376,  S. 

C.  50  Am.  Dec.  249,  379,  805 

AA^eeks  v.  State,  79  Ga.  36,  S.  C. 

3  S.  E.  R.  323,  1165 

AA^eeks  v.  State,  31  Miss.  490,  630 

AA^eems  v.  Lathrop,  42  Tex.  207,  195 
AVeeping  AA' ater,  etc., Co.  v.Halde- 

man,  35  Neb.  139,  S.  C.  52  N.AV. 

Rep.  892,  653 

AVegman  v.  Childs,  41  N.  Y.  159,  299 
Wehle  V.  Conner,  83  N  Y.  231,  468 
AA^ehringer  v.  Ahlemeyer,  23  Mo. 

App.  277,  1160 

Weiderkind  v.  Toulumne  AA'ater 

Co.,  85  Cal.  431,  1069 

AA^eidner  v.  Conner,  9  Pa.  St.  78,  509 
AVeight  V.  Liverpool,  etc., Ins.  Co., 

30  La.  Ann.  1186,  442 
AA'eil  V.  Kume,  49  Mo.  158,  349 
AVeil  V.  Nevitt,  18  Colo.  10,  S.  C. 

31  Pac.  Rep.  487,  112 
AVeil  V.  Schwartz,   21  Mo.  App. 

372,  537 

AVeil  V.  Silverstone,  6  Bush  (Ky.) 

698,  513 

AVeinecke  v.  State,  34  Neb.  14,  S. 

C.  51  N.  AV.  R.  307,  177 

AA'^einzorpflin  v.  State,  7   Blackf. 

186,  1159 

AA'eir  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  19 

Neb.  212,  1165 

AVeir  v.  State,  96  Ind.  311,  202 

AVeis  V.  City  of  Madison,  75  Ind. 

241,  S.  C.  39  Am.  R.  135,  1053 

Weiss  V.  Hobbs,  84  A"a.  489,  1027 

AVelborn  v.  Weaver,  17  Ga.  267, 

S.  C.  63  Am.  Dec.  2.35,  1160 

Welch  V.  Hull,  73  Mich.  47,  40  N. 

W.  R.  797,  4.30,  434 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
AVelch  V.  Sykes,  3  Gilm.  197,  S.  C. 

44  Am.  Dec.  689,  303 

AVelch  V.  AVetzell  Co.,  29  W.  A"a. 

63,  S.  C.  1  S.  E.  R.  339,  177 

AVelch  V.  Zerger,  29  111.  App.  348,  550 
AVelcome  v.  Boswell,  54  Ind.  297,  619 
AVelcome  v.  Mitchell,  81  AVis.  566, 

S.  C.  51  N.  AV.  R.  1080,        782,  1079 
Weld  V.  Came,  98  Mass.  152,  560 

AVeldon  v.  Burch,  12  111.  374,  781 

AVellborn  v.  People,  76  111.  516,  221 
AVeller  v.  AA^ey and,  2  Grant's  Cas. 

103,  298 

AVelles  v.  Fish,  3  Pick.  74,  367 

AVellesley  v.  The  Duke  of  Beau- 
fort, 2  Russ.  1,  290 
AVellesley  v.  AA'^ellesley,  1  Dow. 

(N.  S.)  152,  290 

AVells,  In  re,  36  Kan.  341,  149 

AVells  v.  Brackett,  30  Me.  61,  322 

AVells  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  56 

la.  520,  1235 

AA^'ells  V.  Jackson,  etc.,  Co.,  48  N. 

H.  491,  503 

AVells  V.  Kavanagh,  74  la.  372,  S. 

C.  37  N.  AV.  R.  780,  704 

AVells  V.  Lain,  15  Wend.  99,  576 

AVells  V.  McGeoch,  71  AA'is.  196, 

S.  C.  35  N. AV.  R.  769,         1143,  1207 
AA^'ells  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  110  Mo. 
286,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A.  847,  S.  C. 
19  S.  AV.  R.  530,  170 

AVells  V.  Moore,  49  Mo.  229,  1179 

Wells  V.  Neff,  14  Ore.  66,  569,  571 

Wells  V.  Peirce,  27  N.  H.  503,  290 

Wells  V.  People,  44  111.  40,  464 

Wells  V.  Scott,  4  Mich.  347,  346 

AVells  V.  State,  53  Ark.  211,  S.  C. 

13  S.  AV.  R.  737,  631 

AVells  v.AVaterhouse,  22  Me.  131,     316 
AVells,  Fargo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis, 
105  N.  Y.  670,  S.  C.  12  N.  E.  R. 
42,  504 

AVelman,  Matter  of,  20  \^t.  653,       379 
AVelsh  v.  Allen,  54  Cal.  211,  1184 

AVelsh  v.  Childs,  17  Ohio  St.  319,    320 
AVelsh  V.  Joy,  13  Pick.  (Mass.) 

477,  435 

Welsh  V.  State,  96  Ala.  92,  S.  C. 

11  So.  R.  450,  1073 

AVelsh  V.  State,  126  Ind.  71,        149, 309 
AVelty  V.  Campbell,  37  AV.  A^a.  797, 

S.  C.  17  S.  E.  R.  312,  1236 

Wenman  v.  Mohawk  Ins.  Co.,  13 

AVend.267,  S.C.28  Am.Dec.464,  360 
Wente  v.  Young,  12  Hun  220,  337 
Wentz  v.  Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504,  S. 

C.  15  N.  E.  R.  541,  345 

Werborn  v.  Kahn,  93  Ala.  201,  S. 
C. So.  R.  729,  364 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 'j 


cclxxix 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Werges  v.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  35  La.  Ann.  641,  370 

Werner  v.  State,  44  Ark.  122, 

665,  1156 
Werner  v.  Tuch,  127  N.  Y.  217,  S. 

C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  443,  S.  C.  27  N. 

E.  K.  845,  402,  403 

Wernwag  v.Bro\vn,3  Blackf.  457,  184 
Werts  V.  Mav,  21  Pa.  St.  274,  807 

Wescott  V.  Arclier,  12  Neb.  345, 

S.  C.  11  N.  W.  K.  491,  446,448 

Weslingv.  Noonan,  31  Miss.  599,  404 
AVesner  V.  Stein,  97  Pa.  St.  322,  382 
Wessels  v.  Beenian,  (56  Mich.  343, 

S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  510,         1227,  1239 
Wessels  v.  Beeman,  87  Mich.  481, 

S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  483,  525,  1069 

Wesson  v.  Washburn,  etc.,  Co., 

154  Mass.  514,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R. 

679,  1076 

West  V.  Bagbv,  12  Tex.  34,  S.  C. 

62  Am.  Dec."512,  1044 

West  V.  Burke,  60  Tex.  51,  202 

West  v.Cavins,74  Ind.  265,  1095,  1158 
West  V.  Chase,  3  Ind.  301,  397 

West  V.  Chasten,  12  Fla.  315,  497 

West  Cambridge  v.  Lexington,  1 

Pick.   506,   S.   C.  11  Am.  Dec. 

231,  292 

West  V.  McMullen,  112  Mo.  405, 

S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  628,  1047 

AVest  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  40 

Minn.   189,   S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R. 

1031,  449 

West  V.  Piatt,  116  Mass.  308,  475 

West  V.  Smith,  101  U.  S.  263,  539 

West  V.  State,  1  Wis.  209,  522 

West  V.  Walker,  6  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

420,  477 

West  V.  Walker,  77  AVis.  557,  S. 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  819,  637 

West  V.  AVliite,  56  Mich.  126,  542 

West  V.  AVilliamson,  1  Swan.  277, 

321,  1198 
West  Mahanov  Twp.  v.  AVatson, 

112  Pa.  St.  074,  S.  C.  3  Atl.  R. 

866,  534 

AVestbrook  v.  Aultman,  etc.,  Co., 

3  Ind.  App.  83,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R. 

1011,  784 

AVestbrook  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Grant,  60 

Me.  88,  ^  379 

AVestcott  V.  Ecdes,  3  Utah  258,  1238 
AVesterlield's    Estate,    In    re,  96 

Cal.  113,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  1104,     783 
AA'^estern  Assurance  Co.  v.  !Maver, 

64  AIo.  795,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  173, 

1025,  1034 
Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  69  Ga. 

524.  255 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  003-2244.'] 
Western,  etc.,  Co.  v. Virginia,  etc., 

Co.,  10  W.  Va.  250,  269 

AA'esteni  Lunatic  Asylum  v.  Mil- 
ler, 29  W.  Va.  326,  S.  C.  6  Am. 

St.  H.  644,  366 

AVestern  Union  Tel. Co. v.  Buskirk, 

107  Ind.  549,  179,  1176 

AVestern  Union  Tel.  Co. v.  Collins, 

45  Kan.  88,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  187, 

S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  515,  504,  510 

AA^estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Culber- 
son, 79  Tex.  65,  S.  C.  15   S.  AV. 

R.  219,  385 

AVestern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Frank, 

85  Ind.  480,  207,  1139,  1158 

AA'^estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Locke, 

107  Ind.  9,  254,  1184 

AVestern   L'nion  Tel.  Co.  v.    AIc- 

Kinnv,  2  Tex.  Ct.    App.  Civil 

Cases"  644,  412 

AVestern  Union  Co.  v.  Meredith, 

95  Ind.  93,  385 

AVestern  Union  Tel.  Co. V.  Phillips, 

21  S.  W.  R.  638,  299 

AA'estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Scircle, 

103  Ind.  227,  385,  1140 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Steven- 
son, 128  Pa.  St.  442,  S.  C.  5  L.  R. 

A.  515,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  441,     544,  557 
AV^estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Strate- 

meier,  6  Ind.  App.  125,  S.  C.  33 

N.  E.  R.  871,  1141 

AVestern  Union,  etc.,  Co. v.  Taylor, 

84Ga.408,S.C.8L.R.A.  189,         342 
AVestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Trissal,  98 

Ind.  566,  1144.  1150 

AA^estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Yopst, 

118  Ind.  248,  387 

AVestervelt  v.  Gregg.  12  N.Y.  202,  424 
AVesterwelt  v.  Lewis,  2  AIcLean 

511,  327 

AVestfall  v.  Stark,  24  Ind.  377,  1209 
AVestfield  v.  Alayo,  122  Mass.  100,  412 
AVestgate    v.    Aschenbrenner,   39 

111.  App.  263,  1081 

AVestheimer   v.    Craig  (Md.),   25 

Atl.  R.  419,  1195 

AVestniinster  v.  Shiplev,  68  Md. 

610,  S.  C.  13  Atl.  R.  365,  1237 

Weston  V.   City  Council,   2  Pet. 

449,  123 

AA'eston    v.    Commonwealth,  111 

Pa.  St.  251,  S.  C.  2  Atl.  Rep. 

191,  661 

Weston   V.  Hodskins,  136  Mass.. 

326,  382 

AVestou  V.  Johnson,  48  Ind.  1, 

1132,  1143.  1165 
Weston   V.   Stuart.    11    Me.    326, 

582,  583 


cclxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wetherbee  v.  Dunn,  32  Cal.  106,     783 
AVetherbee  v.  Norris,  113  Mass. 

565,  805 

Wethers    v.    Denmead,    22  Md. 

143,  299 

Wetzler  v.  Dufh',  78  Wis.  170,  S. 

C.  12  L.  R.  A."l78,  11G8 

Wevbriglit  V.  Fleming,  40  Ohio  St. 

52,  1070 

Weymouth  v.  Gorham,22  Me.385,    397 
Whalen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  75 

la.  563,  S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.  894,    1091 
Whalen   v.    Olmstead,   61   Conn. 

263,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A.  593,  294 

Whalen  v.  Sheridan,  18  Blatchf. 

324,  1222 

Whalev  v.  Charleston,  8  So.  Car. 

344,  ■  255 

Whalev  v.  Gleason,  40  Ind.  405,     1231 
Whalev  v.  King,  92  Cal.  431,  S.C. 

28  Pac.  R.  579,  622 

Wheat  V.  Bower,  42  111.  App.  600,     613 
Wheatley  v.  Martin,  6  Leigh  (Va.) 

62,  600 

Wheaton  v.  Cross,  2  Hayw.    (N. 

Car.)  154,  "  622 

Wheaton  v.  Doolittle,  23  AVend. 

377,  116 

Wheeden  v.  Richmond,9  R.  1. 128, 
I     S.  C.  98  Am.  Dec.  373, 

113,  248,  332,  1214 
•  Wheelden  v.  Wilson,  44  Me.  11,  33 
Wheeler  v.  Ahrenbeak,  54  Tex. 

535,  443 

Wheeler  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  6 

Mo.  App.  235,  110 

Wheeler  v.  Cobb,  75  N.  Car.  21,     464 
Wheeler  v.  Emerson,   45  N.   H. 

526,  475 

Wheeler  v.  Goffe,  24  Tex.  660,         190 
Wheeler  v.    Hawkins,  101    Ind. 

486,  410 

Wheeler  v.  HolHs,  19  Tex.  522,  S. 

C.  70  Am.  Dec.  363,  1134 

Wheeler  v.  Laird,  147  Mass.  421, 

S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  212,  551 

Wheeler  v.  McGuire,  86  Ala.  398, 

S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  808,  548 

Wheeler  v.  Nichols,  32  Me.  233,      469 
Wheeler  v.  Ruckman,  51   N.  Y. 

.391,  1180 

Wheeler    v.   Schroeder,  4  R.    I. 

383,  1055 

Wheeler  V.  Shields,  2  Scam.  (111.) 

348,  510 

Wheeler  v.  Smith,  11  Barb.  345,      197 
Wheeler  v.  State,  24  Wis.  52,  239 

Wheeler  v.  Sweet,  137  N.  Y.  435,     1078 
Wheeler  V.  Van  Houten,  12  Johns. 

(N.Y.)311,  597 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Wheeler    v.   Wallace,   53    Mich. 

355  1158 

Wheeler  v.  Wheeler,  76  Tex.  489, 

S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  305,  147 

Wheeler  v.  Wilkins,  19  Mich.  78, 

439   1134 
Wheeler  &  W.  Mnfg.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Laughlin, 28  N.  Y.  S.  R.  372,       455 
Wheeling  v.  Campbell,  12  W.  Va. 

36,  366,  376 

Wheeling    Gas    Co.    v.    City    of 

Wheeling,  5  W.  Va.  448,  590 

Wheelock  v.  Henshaw,  19  Pick. 

341,  1140 

Wheelock  v.  Lee,  74  N.  Y.  495, 

239  609 
Wheelock  v.  Tanner,  39  N.  Y.  481,'  400 
Whelanv.Reilly,61  Mo.565,  403,  404 
Whelan  v.  United  States,  7  Cranch 

112,  278 

Whereatt  v.  Ellis,  68  Wis.  61,  394 

Whetston  v.  State,  31  Fla.  240,  S. 

C.  12  So.  R.  661,  809 

Whidby  Land,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Nye, 

5  Wash.  301,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R. 

752,  181 

Whipple  V.  Earick  (Ky.),  S.  C.  19 

S.  W.  R.  237,  371 

Whipple  v.Robbins,97  Mass.  107,  473 
Whipple  V.  Stevens,  22 N.  H.  219,  382 
Whipple  V.  Whitman,  13  R.  1. 512, 

S.  C.  43  Am.  R.  42,         207,  564, 565 
Whitaker  v.    Bramson,  2    Paine 

209,  1193 

Whitaker  v.  Gee,  61  Tex.  217,  1178 
Whitaker  v.  Salisbury,  15  Pick. 

(Mass.)  534,  795 

Whitcher  v.  Whitcher,  49  N.  H. 

176,  S.  C.  6  Am.  R.  486,  595 

Whitcomb  v.  Cook,  39  Vt.  585,  433 
Whitcomb  v.  Whitcomb,  46  la. 

437,  287 

Whitcomb  v.Whiting,  Doug.  652,  384 
AVhite's  Estate,  37  Cal.  190,  218 

White    V.    Bank  of    the    United 

States,  6  Ohio  529,  269 

White  V.  Bailey,  14  Conn.  271, 

1108,  1116,  1154 
White  V.  Bradley,  66  Me.  254, 

543,  1041 
White  V.  Burnley,  20  How.    (U. 

S.)  235,  533 

White  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  122 

Ind.  317,  1148 

White  V.  Clawson,  79  Ind.  188,  380 
White  V.  Commonwealth,  80  Ky. 

480,  29 

White  V.  Corlies,  46  N.  Y.  467,  565 
AVhite  V.  Crow,  110  U.  S.  183,  S. 

C.  4  Sup.  Ct.  R.  71,  1198 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxi 


[Itoferences  nrr  tn  Pnfjes,  Vol.  I,  pp. 

White  V.  Fleming,  114  Ind.  5G0, 

144,  164 
White  V.  Foote,  29  W.  Va.  385,  S. 

C.  (J  Am.  St.  R.  6.50,  331 

White  V.  Fox,  29  Conn.  570,  594 

White  V.  Gregory,  126  Ind.  95, 

1143,  1207 
White  V.  (iriggs,  54  la.  650,  495 

White  V.  llami)ton,  10  la.  238,  201 
White  V.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  348 

White  V.  Harvey,  23  Ind.  55, 

1181  1182 
White  V.  Hermann,  51  111.  243, 

533,  697 
White  V.  Hinton,  3  Wye.  753,  S. 

C.  17  L.  K.  A.  66,  455 

White  V.  Hovt,  73  N.  Y.  505,  566 

White  V.  Jenkins,  16  Mass.  62,  471 
White  V.  Kimtz,  107  N.  Y.  518,  S. 

C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  886,  567 

White  V.  INIandeville,  72  Ga.  705,  154 
White  V.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.,  63 

Hun  634,S.  C.  18  N.Y.S.  396,  1133 
White  V.  ]\Iiller,  78  N.  Y.  393,  394 
White  V.  Milwaukee  City  Rv.  Co., 

61  Wis.  536,  S.  C.  50  Am.  R. 

154,  810 

White  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

31  Kan.  280,  547 

White  V.  Morris,  107  N.  Car.  92, 

S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  80,  6U 

White  V.  Murtland,  71  111.  250, 

632,  634 
White  V.  Old  Dominion  Co.,  102 

N.  Y.  660,  569 

White  V.  People,  90  111.  117,  178,  819 
White  V.  Perkins,  16  Ind.  358,  1166 
White  V.  Poorman,  24  la.  108,  180 
White  V.  Prinim,  3()  111.  416,  438 

White  V.  Rankin,  90  Ala.  541,  S. 

C.  8  So.  R.  118,  164 

White  V.  Ravhurn,  11  Ore.  450,  1158 
White  V.  Spfeckles,  75Cal.610,  S. 

C.  17  Par.  R.  715,  533 

White  V.  State,  10  Tex.  App.381,  796 
White  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  652, 

S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  462,  666 

White  V.  State,  52  Miss.  216,  667 

AVhite  V.  Stoner,  18  Mo.  App.  540,  738 
White  V.  Tennant,  31  W.  Va.  790, 

S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  896,  312 

White   V.    Thompson,    1    Breese 

(111.)  72,  1195 

White     V.     Town     of    Portland 

(Conn.).  26  Atl.  R.  342.  618 

AVhite  V.  White,  30  Vt.  338,  471 

White  V.  Wili^on,  10  111.  21,  4(15 

White  V.Wright,  16  Mo.  App.  551,    558 
AVhitecar  v.  Miehenor,  37  N.  J. 
Eq.6,  478 


1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Whiteford  v.  Burckmeyer,  1  Gill. 

(Md.)  127,  736 

Whiteford  v.  Com.,  18  Am.  Dec. 

771,  545 

Whiteford  Tp.  v.  Probate  Judge, 

53  Mich.  130,  424,  425 

Whitehall  v.  Crawford,    37  Ind. 

147,  1140 

Wliitehall  v.   Keller,  100  Pa.  St. 

105,  S.  C.  45  Am.  R.  361,  207 

Whitehall  v.  Lane,  61  Ind.  93,        624 
Whitehead  v.  Coleman,  31  Gratt. 

(Va.)  784,  471 

Whitehead  v.  Henderson,  4  Smed. 

<fe  M.   (Miss.)  704,  474 

Whitehead  v.  Wells,  29  Ark.  99,     362 
Whitehead  v.  Wooten,  43  Miss. 

523,  195, 496 

Whitehouse  v.  Fellowes,  9  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  901,  368 

Whitehouse  v.Partridge,3Swanst. 

3()5,  476 

Whitenach  v.  Stryker,  2  N.  J.  Eq. 

8,  '  679 

Whitenack's  Case,   2  Green  Ch. 

252,  289 

Whiteside  V.  Adams,26  Ind.  250,     1231 
Whiteside  v.  Jackson,    1  AVend. 

418,  1225 

Whitesides  v.  Barber,  24  S.  Car. 


37 


610 


Whitesides  v.  Russell,  8  W.  &  S. 

(Pa.)  44,  1134 

Whitewater,    etc..  Canal  Co.   v. 

Henderson,  3  Ind.  3,  432 

White  Water  Valley  Co.  v.  Dow, 

1  Ind. 141,  518 

Whitfield,  Ex  parte,  2  Atk.  313,  495 
AVhitfield  v.  Westbrook,  40  Miss. 

311,  1066 

Whittield  v.  Whitfield,  8  Ired.  L. 

(N.  Car.)  163,  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec. 

350,  586 

Whitford  v.  County  of  Clark  (U. 

S.),  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  306,  512 

Whitford  v.  Newbern.  Ill  N.  Car. 

272  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  327,  1065 

Whiting  y.  Budd,  5  Mo.  443,  604 

Whiting  V.  Fuller,  22  111.  33,  1222 

AVhiting  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Co., 

76  Wfs.  592,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R. 

(]-o  180,  737 

AVhitis  y.  Culver,  25  la.  30,  599 

Whitlock  y.  Heard,  13  Ala.  776, 

S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  73,  394 

Whitlock  V.  Ledford,  82  Ky.  390,  593 
Wliitman  v.  Boiling,  47  Ga.  125,  531 
Whitman  y.  Foley,  125  N.  Y.651,  711 
Whitman    v.    Morey,    63    N.    H. 

44S,  795 


cclxxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[liiferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Whitman  v.  AVeller,  39  Ind.  515, 

255,  414, 1205 
Whitmore  v.  Shiverick,   3    Nev. 

288,  443 

AVhitney    v.    Bigelow,     4    Pick. 

(Mass.)  110,  382 

"Whitnev  v.   Blackburn,   17    Ore. 

564  S'.C.  11  Am.St.R.857,  423,433 
Whitney  v.  Boston,  98  Mass.  312,  799 
Whitnev  v.  Butts  (Ga.),  16  S.  E. 

Rep.  649,  799 

Whitney  v.  Ferris,  10  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  66,  713,  1216 

Whitnev  v.  Karner,  44  Wis.  563,  1162 
Whitney  v.  Kelley,  67  Me.  377,  476 
Whitnev   v.   Nat.    Masonic   Ace. 

Assn.'(Minn.),54N.W.R.184,  588 
Whitney  v.  New  Haven,  58  Conn. 

450,  S.  C.  20  AtL  R.  666,  527 

Whitney  v.Porter,23  I1L445,  293,'443 
Whitnev  v.  Stone,  23  CaL  275,  598 
Whitney  v.  Whiting,  35  N.   H. 

457,  285 

Whitnev-Hohnes    Organ    Co.   v. 

Pettitt,  34  Mo.  App.  536,  610 

Whitsell  V.Wells,  24  Pick.  (Mass.) 

25,  395 

Whitson,  In  re,  89  Mo.  58,  S.  C.  1 

S.  W.  R.  125,  628,  639 

Whittaker  v.  Sigler,  44  la.  419,  511 
Whittaker  v.  Voorhees,  38  Kan. 

71,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  874,  511 

Whittaker  v.  West  Boylston,  97 

Mass.  273,  1181 

Wliittem  V.  State,  36  Ind.  196,  174 
Whittemore  v.  Fisher,  132  111.  243, 

S   C.  24  N.  E.  R.  636,  1130 

Whittemore  v.  Gibbs,  24  N.  H.  484,  34 
Whittemore  v.  Whittemore,  2  N. 

H.  26,  597 

Whittenton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  &  O. 

Packet  Co.,  21  Fed.  R.  896,  374 

Whittier  v.  Collins,  15  R.  I.  90,  S. 

C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  879,  301,  353 

Whittington  v.  Christian,  2  Rand. 

(Va.)  353,  1034 

Whitwell  v.  Emory,  3  Mich.  84,  S. 
C.  59  Am.  Dec.  220, 

188,  368,  1175,  1191 
Whizenant  v.  State,  71  Ala.  383,  739 
Whorley  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  72  Ala.  20,  474 

Whvte  v.  Gibbes,  20  How.  (U.  S.) 

541,  454 

Wiberlv  v.  Matthews,  91  N.Y.  648,  597 
Wi<-hita  V.  Burleigh,  .36  Kan.  34,  170 
Wichita,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fechheimer, 

.86  Kan.  45,  1087 

Wichita  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hobbs 
(Tex.),  23S.  W.  R.  923,  820 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Wick  V.  Weber,  64  111.  167,  623 

Wicker  v.  Hume,  7  H.  L.  Cases 

124,  274 

Wickersham  v.  Beers,  20  111.  App. 

243,  1070 

Wicks  V.  Ludwig,  9  Cal.  173, 

139,  142, 155 
Widner  v.  Walsh,  3  Col.  548,  393 

Wieland  v.White,  109  Mass.  392,     564 
Wiest  V.  Luyendyk,  73  Mich.  661, 

S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  839,  1117 

Wiggin  V.  Phelps,  10  Hun  (N.Y.) 

187, 
Wiggin  V.  Wiggin,  43  N.  H.  561, 

S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  192, 
Wiggins  V.    Burkham,   10  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  129, 
Wiggins  V.  City  of  Chicago,  68  111. 

372,  1109,  1155 

Wiggins  V.  Downer,  67  How.  Pr. 

65;  1123, 

Wiggins  V.  Holley,  11  Ind.  2, 
Wiggins  V.  Holman,  5  Ind.  502, 
Wiggins  V.  McCoy,  87  N.Car.499, 
Wigglesworth  v.  Atkins,  5  Cush. 

(Mass.)  212, 
Wight,  In  re,  134  V.  S.  136,     191, 
Wight  V.  Wallbaum,  39  111.  554, 

115,  138,  155 
Wight  V.  Warner,  1  Doug.  (Mich.) 

384, 
Wightman    v.    Karsner,  20  Ala. 

446,  116 

Wilbun  V.  McCally,  63  Ala.  436, 
Wilbur  V.  Abbott,  60  N.  H.  40, 
Wilbur  V.  Gilmore,  21  Pick.  250, 


626 

401 


553 


1124 
551 

797 
1184 

677 
1243 

314 

317 

,  145 

318 

343 

1179 

Wilburn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  36  Mo.  App.  203,  559 

Wilcox  V.  Majors,  88  Ind.  203,  192 
Wilcox  V.  Mitchell,  5  Miss.  272,  1236 
Wilcox  V.  Moudy,  89  Ind.  232,  435 
Wilcox     V.     Singletary,     Wright 

(Ohio)  420,  583 

Wilcox  V.  Smith,  5  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

231,  503 

Wilcox    V.    Stephenson,   30    Fla. 

377,S.  C.  11  So.  R.  659,  721 

Wilcox  V.  Wheeler,  47  N.  H.  488,  483 
Wilcox  V.  Wilcox,  63  Vt.  137,  S.  C. 

21  Alt.  R.  423,  332 

Wilcox  V.  Wilcox,  14  N.  Y.  575,  290 
Wilcox  V.  Williams,  5  Nev.  206,  383 
Wilcoxen  v.  Bowles,  1  La.  Ann. 

230,  537 

Wild  V.  Oregon,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  21 

Ore.  159,  S.C.  27  Pac.  R.  954,  1211 
Wilde  V.  Trainor,  59  Pa.  St.  439,  1172 
Wilder  v.  Bailey,  3  Mass.  289,  196 
AViMer  v.  Sjirague,  50  Me.  354,  555 
Wildes  v.  Mairs,  6  N.  J.  L.  320,      632 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxiii 


[lieferenrea  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wildiiuin  V.  Ri.ler,  23  Conn.  172,  342 
Wilds  V.  Blaiichard,  7  Vt.  138,  803 
Wiler  V.  Manley,  51  ln<l.  Ki!),  1226 
Wiley  V.  Howard,  lo  Ind.  1(1!),  390 
Wiley  V.  I'avev,  (51  Ind.  \'u ,  192 

Wiley  V.  Pratt',  23  Ind.  (•.28,      (105,000 
Wiley  V.  Platter,  17  111.  ").•«,  002 

Wilev  V.  Wilson,  77  Ind.  500,  550 

AVilhehn  v.  People,  72  111.  408,  652 

Wilhitev.Wilhite,  124  Ind.  226,  293 
Wilkes    V.    Broadbent,    1    Wila. 

63,  1172 

Wilkes  V.  Cotter,  28  Ark.  519,  570 
Wilkerson  v.  Corrigan,  etc.,  Co., 

26  Mo.  App.  144,  1027 

Wilkerson  v.  Eilers,  114  Mo.  245, 

S.  C.  21  S.  AV.  R.  514,  1008 

Wilkerson  v.  Rust,  57  Ind.  172,       1216 
Wilkerson    v.    Schoonmaker,    77 
Tex.  615,  S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  803, 

320,  427 
Wilkins  v.  Anderson,  11  Pa.  St. 

399,  819 

Wilkins   v.  Babbershall,  32   Me. 

184,  800 

Wilkins  v.  State,  113  Ind.  514, 

212,  213 
Wilkinson  v.Bayley,71  Wis.131,  439 
Wilkinson   v.  Conaty,   65   Mich. 

614,  S.  C.  32  N.  W.  R.  841,  451 

Wilkinson  v.  Fairrie,  2  Am.  Law. 

Reg.  (N.  S.)  244,  997 

Wilkinson  v.  Jett,  7  Leigh  (Va.) 

115,  719 

Wilkinson  v.  Johnston,  83  Tex. 

392,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  746,  363 

Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  627,  274 
Wilkinson  v.  Page,  1  Hare  270,  572 
Wilkinson  v.  Parrott,  32  Cal.  102,  619 
Wilkinson  v.  Rutherford,  49  N.  J. 

L.  241,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  507,  410 

Wilks  V.  Back,  2  East  142,  581 

Wilks  V.  State,  27  Tex.  App.  381, 

S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  415,  224 

Willard  V.  A.  Seigel  Gas.  Co.,  47 

Mo.  App.  1,  206,536 

Willard  v.  Bickford,  39  N.  H.  536,  596 
Willard  v.  Fralick,  31  Mich.  431,  298 
Willard  v.  Germer,  1  Sandf.  (N. 

Y.)  50,  551 

Willard  V.  Whitney,  40  :\Ie.  235,  182 
WilUnits    V.  Northwestern,    etc., 

Co.,  SI  Ind.  300,        1025,  1028,  1030 
AVillett  V.  Fister,  IS  Wall.  91,  910 

Willett  V.  Porter,  42  Ind.  250, 

nil,  1116 
Wllley  V.  Belfast,  61  Me.  569, 

534,  1119 
AVilhn-  V.  Snv.lor,  34  IMich.  60.  33 

Williams,  Ex  jnirte,  4  Yerg.  579,     214 


l-n02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-7244.] 
Williams,  Matter  of,  4  Denio  (N. 

Y.)  194,  595 

Williams  v.  Benet  35,  So.  Car.  150, 

S.C.  14  L.  R.  A.  825, 14  S.  E.  R. 

311,  226 

Williams  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  Co., 

12()  N.  Y.  90,  823 

WilliauiS  V.  Burffy,  96  U.  S.  176,  115 
Williams    v.    Burgess,   12  Ad.  & 

El.  635,  379 

Williams  v.  Burnett,  6  T.  B.  Mon. 

322,  310 

Williams  v.  Cammack,  27   Miss. 

209,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  508,  158 
Williams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  112  Mo.  463,  S.  C.  20  S.  W. 

R.  631,  590 

Williams  v.  City  of  Rochester,  2 

Lans.  169,  1138,  1139 

Williams  v.    Commonwealth,  82 

Ky.  640,  179 

Williams  v.  Conroy,  52  Cal.  414,  1184 
Williams  v.  Danziger,  91  Pa.  St. 

232,  585 

Williams  v.  Dewitt,  12  Ind.  309,  705 
Williams  V.  Dickenson,  28  Fla.  90, 

S.  C. 9  So.  R.  847,  624,  780,  1070 
Williams  v.  Doe,  1  S.  &  M.  559,  435 
Williams  v.  Downes,  30  Tex.  51,  456 
Williams  v.  Eikenberrv,  22  Neb. 

210,  S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  373,  1096 
Williams  v.  Gilkerson-Sloss,  etc., 

Co.,  45  La.  Ann. — ,  S.  C.  13 So. 

R.  394,  610 

Williams  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc., 

Co.,  53  Mich.  271,  Goo,  706,  813 

Williams  v.  Guile,  117  N.  Y.  343, 

S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  366,  1050 

Williams  v.  Harrington,  11  Ired. 

610,  314 

AVilliams  v.   Hartshorn,  30  Ala. 

•ni  540 

Williams  v.  Haves,  68  Wis.  248, 

S.  C.  32  N.  W.'  R.  44,  187 

Williams  v.  Hayes,  20  N.  Y.  58, 

593,  707 
Williams  v.  Havnes,  77  Tex.  283, 

S.  C.19  Am.St.R.752,  320,  329,  474 
Williams   v.    Hubbard,    1    Mich. 

446,  163 

Williams  v.  Jenkins,  11  Ga.  595,  496 
Williams  v.  Jones.  42  Miss.  270,  473 
Williams  v.  Jones,  12  Ind.  561,  502 
Williams  v.  Lord  Bagot,  3  B.  &  C. 

772,  424,  428 

Williams  v.  Lumber  Co.,  72  Wis. 

487,  .  1145 

Williams  v.  McNamee,  102  U.  S. 

.-)7-i  12(>i 

Wi!liamsv.:\Iorgan,lllU.S.684,    1181 


cclxxxiv 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Williams  v.  Morgan,  iLitt.  (Ky.) 

Its:,  158 

Williams  v.  3Ioselev,  2  Fla.  304,  153 
Williams  v.  Nashville,  89  Tenn. 

487,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  364  171 

Williams  v.  Nolan,  58  Tex.  708,  565 
Williams  v.  Paschall,  4  Dall.  (U. 

S.)  284,  599 

Williams  v.  Port,  9  Ind.  551,  1039 

Williams  v.  Reed,  29  N.  J.  L.  385,  458 
Williams  v.  Robinson,  42  Vt.  658, 

S.  C.  1  Am.  R.  359,  679 

Williams  v.  Robles,  22  Fla.  95,  639 
Williams  v.  Sacramento   Co.,   58 

Cal.  237,  450 

Williams  v.  Shelden,61  Mich.  311,  411 
AVilliams  v.  Smith,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

166,  654 

Williams  v.  Spencer,  15  Am.  St.  R. 

206,  739 

Williams  v.  State  (Ala.),  13  So. 

Rep.  333,  1071 

Williams  v.  State,  27  Am.  Rep. 

412,  819 

Williams  V.  State  (Ark.),  16  S.  W. 

R.  816,  638 

Williams  v.  State  (Fla.),  13  So.  R. 

429,  1218 

Williams  v.  State,  3  Ga.  453,  657 

Williams  v.  State,  60  Ga.  367,  662 

AVilliams  v.  State,  32  Miss.  389.  657 
Williams  v.  State,  6  Neb.  334,  1113 
Williams  v.  State,  30  Tex.  App. 

354,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  408,  668 

Williams  v.  Taunton, 125  Mass.  34,  811 
Williams  v.  Thomas,  3  New  Mex. 

324,  S   C.  9  Pac.  R.  356,  152 

Williams  v.  Turner,  7  Ga.  348,  800 
Williams  v.  Van  Valkenburg,   16 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  144,  437 

Williams  v.  Walton,  9  Cal.  142,  576 
Williams  v.  Waters,  36  Ga.  454,  536 
Williams  v.  West,  2  Ohio  St.  82,  1199 
Williams  v.    Williams,    125  Ind. 

156,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  176,  446,  447 
Williams  v.Williams,130N.Y.193,  287 
Williams  v.  Woods,  16  ]\Id.  220,  638 
Williamson  v.  Berry,  8  How.  495,  290 
Williamson    v.  Carroll,  1    Harr. 

(N.  J.)  217,  724 

Williamson    v.   Cummings,    etc., 

Co.,  95  Cal.  652,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R. 
762,  1200 

Williamson  v.  McClure,  37  Pa.  St. 

402,  537 

Williamson  v.    McCormick,    126 

Pa.  St.  274,  S.  C.  17  Atl.R.  591,     613 
Williamson  v.  Newport  News,  etc., 
Co.  34  AV.  Va.  657,  S.  C.  26  Am. 
St.  R.  927,  1025 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Williamson  v.  Ross,  33  Ala.  509,     259 
Williamson  v.  Wardlaw,  40  Ga. 

702,  431 

Williamson  v.  Wilson,  1  Bland. 

(Md.)  418,  194 

Williamson  v.  Yingling,  80  Ind. 

379,  1092 

Williamson's    Succession,   3   La. 

Ann.  261,  314 

Willingham  v.  Harrell,   36   Ala. 

583,  577 

Willins  V.  Wheeler,  17  How.  Pr. 

qo  332 

Will'is  V.  Bayles,  105  Ind  363,  126 

Willis  V.  Elam,  28  La.  Ann.  858,  153 
Willis  V.  Farley,  24  Cal.  491,  118 

AVillis   V.    Nichols,   5  Tex.    Civil 

App.  154.    S.    C.   23  S.  W.   R. 

1025,  696 

Willis  V.  Russell,  100  U.  S.  621,  783 
Willis  V.  State,  62  Ind.  391,  1164 

Williston    V.    Morse,    10     Mete. 

(Mass.)  17,  533 

Willitts  V.  Schuyler,  3   Ind.  App. 

118,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  273,  180 

Will  of  Broderick,  21  Wall.  503,  263 
Willoughbv  V.  Irish,  35  Minn.  63,  384 
Wills  Point  Bank  v.  Bates,  76  Tex. 

329,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  309,  486 

Wilmarth  v.  Woodcock,  66  Mich. 

331,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  400,  533 

Wilmer  v.  Gaither,  68  Md.  342,  384 
Wilmont   v.  Meserole,  8  J.  &  S. 

321,  515 

Wilmot  V.  Richardson,   2   Keyes 

(N.  Y.)  519,  351 

Wilsey  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  83  Ky.  511,  1051,  1052 

Wiltonv.Edwards,  6C.  &P.  677,  31 
Wilton  V.  Girdlestone,  5  B.  &  A. 

847,  365 

Wilson  V.  Berryman,  5  Cal.  44,  1119 
Wilson  V.  Board,  68  Ind.  507,  144 

Wilson  V.  Bucknam,  71  Me.  545,  453 
Wilson  V.  Buell,  117  Ind.  315,  1195 
Wilson  V.  Campbell,  119  lud.  286, 

1105 
Wilson  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  133  111. 

443,  170 

Wilson  V.  City  of  Trenton  (N.  J.), 

16  L.  R.  A.  200,  437 

Wilson  V.  City  of  Wheeling,  19 

W.  Va.  323,  1184 

Wilson  V.  Coles,  2  Blackf.  402,  1212 
Wilson  V.  Cross,  7  Watts   (Pa.) 

4i)5,  586 

Wilson  V.  Donaldson,  117  Ind.  356, 

S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  266,  457 

Wilson  V.  Fowler,  3  Ark.  463,  604 
Wilson  V.  Green,  49  la.  251,  372 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxv 


[Eeferences  are  to  Pages,  ^^(tl.  I,  pp 
Wilson  V.  (iroelle,  83  Wis.  530,  S. 

C.53N.W.  R.  yOO,  lOol 

Wilson  V.  Hauler,  1  M.  <k  S.  120,  340 
Wilson  V.  Hamilton,  7o  Ind.  71,  1155 
Wilson  V.  Hanson,  20  X.  H.375,  551 
Wilson  V.  Holt,  83  Ala.  528,  S.  C. 

3  Am.  St.  R.  7t)8,  386 

Wilson  V.  Joseph,  107  Ind.  490,  S. 

C.  8  N.  E.  R.  fill),  282,  486 

Wilson  V.   Koclinlein,  1  W.  Va. 

145,  fil8 

Wilson  V.  Koontz,  7  Cranch  202,  1205 
AVilson  V.  Ladd,  4il  Me.  73,  444 

AVilson  V.  Martin-Wilson, etc., Co., 

149  Mass.  24,  441 

Wilson  V.  Mason,  3  Ark.  494,  358 

Wilson  V.  Mvers,  4  Hawks  73,  S. 

C.  15  Am.  Dec.  510,  189 

Wilson  V.  People.  94  111.  299,  666 

Wilson  v.Piper,  77  Ind.437,  237, 1239 
Wilson  V.  Rav,  24  Ind.  156,  1178 

Wilson  V.  Riddle,  123  U.  S.  008,  1128 
Wilson  V.  Rodewald,  49  Miss.506,  627 
Wilson  V.  Rodewald,  61  Miss.  228, 

156,  1203 
Wilson  v.Seligman,36  Fed.R.154,  285 
Wilson  V.  Shipman,  34  Neb.  573, 

S.  C.  52N.  W.  R.  576,  455 

Wilson  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

108  Mo.  588,  S.  C.  32  Am.   St. 

Rep.624,S.C.18.S.W.R.286,  285,423 
Wilson  V.  State,  57  Ind.  71,  522 

Wilson  V.  State,  1  Smith  (Wis.) 

191,  974 

Wilson  V.  State,  3  Wis.  698,  803 

AVilson  V.  StoUey,  4  AIcLean  272,  486 
Wilson  V.  Tavlor  (Mo.),  25  S.  W. 

R. 199,        ■  1157 

Wilson  V.  Town  of  Canedea,  15 

Hun  218,  324 

Wilson  V.  Trenton  (N.  J.),  16  L. 

R. A.  200,  437 

Wilson  V.  Tucker,  3  Starkie  N.  P. 

154,  16 

Wilson  V.  United  States,  149  U.  S. 

60,  S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  765,  820 
Wilson  V.  Vance,  55  Ind.  394,  1163 
Wilson  V.  AVelch,  157  Mass.  77,  31 

N.  E.  R.  712,  493 

Wilson  V.  Wilson,  36  Cal.  447,  381 
Wilson  V.  AVinter,  6  Fed.  R.  16,  412 
Wilson  V.  Y.  &  L.  M.  Rv.  Co.,  11 

Gill.  &  J.  58,  "  408 

AVilson  V.  Zook,  69  Miss.  694,  S.  C. 

13So.  R.  351,  1081 

Wilstach  v.Hawkins,14Ind.541,  398 
AVimberg  v.  Schwegeman,  97  Ind. 

528,  ^  390 

AVimer  v.  AVimer,  82  A'a.  890,  S. 

C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  126,  281,  303 


1-002,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
AVincholl  v.  Allen,  1  Conn.  385,      199 
Winchell  v.  Hicks,  18  N.  Y.  558, 

1045,  1078 
AVinchester   v.  Avres,  4    Greene 

104,  ■  214,  226 

Winchester  v.Beardin, 10  Humph. 

247,  S.  C.  51  Am.  Dec.  702,         1192 
AVinchester  v.  Cox,  3  Green  (la.) 

575,  438 

AVinchester  v.  Hinsdale,  12  Conn. 

88,  224 

AVindi-sch  v.  Gussett,30Tex.  744,  1192 
AVindsor  v.  AlcVeigh,  93  U.  S.  277, 

118,  129,  132,  243,  280,  336,  338 
AVinfield  Town  Co.  v.  Maris,  11 

Kan.  128,  213 

AVing  V.  Fairhaven,  8  Cush.  363, 

480,  486 
AVing  V.  Hurlburt,  15  Vt.  607,  402 
AVing  V.  Thompson,  78  AVis.  256, 

S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  606,  556 

AVingo  V.  Caldwell,  36  S.  Car.  598, 

S.C.  14S.  E.  R.  827,  707 

AVinkler    v.    Barthel,   6    Bradw. 

(111.)  HI,  464 

AVinkler  v.  State,  32  Ark.  539,  822 
Winn  V.  Shaw,  87  Cal.  631,  S.  C. 

25  Pac.  R.  968,  483 

AVinne  v.   McDonald,   39    N.  Y. 

233,  1059 

AVinnebago  Co.  v.  Brones,  68  la. 

682,  455 

AA'innesheik  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schueller, 

60  111.  465,  656,  657 

AVinneyv. Sandwich, etc., Co.  (la.), 

50  N".  AV.  R.  565,  441 

AVinslowv.  Donnelly, 119  Ind.  565,  263 
AVinslow  V.  Ins.  Co.,  4  Aletc.  306,  33 
AVinslow  V.  Lambard,  57  Me.  356, 

319,  1196 
AVinslow  V.  State,  92  Ala.  78,  S.  C. 

9  So.  R.  728,  504 

AA'^inslow  v.  Staten  Island,   etc., 

Co.,  21  N.  Y.  S.  R.  87,  441 

AVinsor  v.  The  Queen,  6  B.  &  S. 

143,  180 

AVinston  v.  McLendon,  43  Miss. 

254,  610 

AVinston  v.  Mitchell,  93  Ala.  554, 

S.  C.  9  So.  R.  551.  187 

AVinston  v.  AVestfeldt,  22  Ala.  760, 

S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec.  278.  498 

AVinter  v.  Kinney.  1  N.  Y.  3^5,  469 
AVinter  v.  Landjihere,  42  la.  471,  33 
AVinters  v.  Etiiell,  132  U.  S.  207,  1203 
AAMnters  v.  Means,  25  Neb.  241,  S. 

C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  489,  442 

Winton  v.  Meeker.  25  Conn.  456,  799 
AVinton  v.  Slierman.  20  la.  295,  404 
AVinton  v.  State.  4  Ind.  321,  197 


cclxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  rages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wireback  v.  First  Nat.  Bank  of  | 

Easton,  97  Pa.  St.  543,  656 

Wirtz  V.  Henry,  59  111.  109,  437 

"Wisconsin,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Ashland 

Countv,  81  Wis.  1,  S.  C.  50  N. 

W.  R."937,  484,  1212 

"Wise  V.  Hyatt,  68  Miss.  714,  S.  C. 

10  So.  R.  37,  1043 

Wise  V.  State,  34  Ga.  348,         151,  161 
Wisecarver  v.  Braden,  146  Pa.  St. 

42,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  393,  611 

Wiseman  v.  Bruns,  36  Neb.  467,  S. 

C.  54  N.  W.  R.  858,  655 

Wiseman   v.  Wiseman,   73    Ind. 

112,  519 

Wisnerv.  Bardwell,  38  Mich.  278, 

1069 
Wiswell  V.  Sampson,  14  How.  (U. 

S.)  52,  197,  410 

Witham  v.  Lewis,  1  Wils.  48, 

1103,  1121,  1154,  1155 
Withers  v.  Fiscus,  40  Ind.  131,  1124 
Withers  v.  Fuller,  30  Gratt.  547, 

155,  473,  474 
Withers  v.  Jack,  79  Cal.  297,  S.  C. 

21  Pac.  R.  824,  111 

Withers  v.  Patterson,  27  Tex.  491, 

117,  247 
Withers  V.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  383, 

S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  936,  658 

WMtherspoon  v.  Blewett,  47  Miss. 

570,  394,  519 

Witherspoonv.Dunlap,l  McCord, 

346,  298 

Withington  v.  Warren,  10  Mete. 

(Mass.)  431,  600 

Witkowski  v.   Hern,  82  Cal.  604, 

S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  132,  1044,  1183 

Witten  V.  Robison,  31  Mo.  App. 

525,  189 

Witter  V.  Dudley,  42  Ala.  616,         183 
AVitter  v.  Taylor,  7  Ind.  110,  635 

Wittick  V.  Traum,  27  Ala.  562,  S. 

C.  62  Am.  Dec.  778,  301 

WMttick  V.  Traun,  25  Ala.  317,        1192 
Witting  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  101 

Mo.  631,  1025 

Wittkowsky  v.  Wasson,  71 N.  Car. 

451,  1041,  1055 

Witz  V.  Dale,  129  Ind.  120,  S.  C. 

27N.E.  R.  498,  207,1138 

Witz  V.  Spencer,  51  Ind.  253,  1 74 

Wixson  V.  Devine,  80  Cal.  385,      49, 51 
Wohlenberg  v.  Melchert,  35  Neb. 

803,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  982,  1168 

Wolcott  V.  Ely,  2  Allen  338,  1140 

Wolcott  V.  Hendrick,  6  Tex.  406,     464 
Wolcott  V.  Studebaker,  34  Fed.  R. 

8,  1050 

Wolcott  V.  Yeager,  11  Ind.  84,       111 5 


1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.'] 
Wolf  V.  Arthur,  112  N.  Car.  691, 

S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  843,  737 

Wolf  V.  Bauereis,  72  Md.  481,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  1045,  378 

Wolf  V.  Campbell,  110  Mo.  114,  S. 

C.  19  S.  W.  R.  622,  1050 

Wolf  V.   Kohr,  133  Pa.  St.  13,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  284,  540 

Wolf  V.   Tappau,  5   Dana   (Ky.) 

361,  470 

Wolf  V.  Washer,  32  Kan.  533,  1030 
Wolf  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

62  Pa.  St.  83,  412 

Wolf  V.  Willits,  35  111.  88,  1071 

Wolf  V.    Wolf    (Pa.),   28  Atl.  R. 

164,  783 

Wolfe  V.  Kable,  107  Ind.  565,  1167 
Wolfe  V.  McMillan,  117  Ind.  587,  1052 
Wolfe  V.  Pugh,  101  Ind.  293,  1081 

Wolfe  V.  Underwood  ( Ala.) ,  12  So. 

R.  234,  510 

Wolff    V.    Shenandoah    National 

Bank  (la.),  50  N.  W.  R.  561,  438 
Wolffe  V.  Minnis,  74  Ala.  386,  820 
Wolfforth  V.  State,  31  Tex.  Crim. 

Rep.  387,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  741,  823 
Wolmerstadt  v.    Jacobs,    61    la. 

372,  185 

Womack  v.  Shelton,  31  Tex.  592,  604 
Wombough  v.  Cooper,  2  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  428,  1053 

Wong  V.  Astoria,  13  Ore.  538,  643 

Wood  V.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

8  N.  Y.  160,  581 

Wood  V.  Babb,  16  So.  Car.  427,  404 
Wood  V.  Barber,  90  N.  Car.  76,  384 
Wood  V.  Beadell,  3  Sim.  273,  487 

Wood  V.  Bissell,  108  Ind.  229,  373,377 
Wood  V.  Bridgeport,  143  Pa.  St. 

167,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  752,  546 

Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

39  Fed.  R.  52,  602 

Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

59  la.  196,  531 

Wood  V.  Franklin,  97  Ind.  117, 

149,  159,  232,  234 
Wood  V.  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.,  128 

U.  S.  416,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 

131,  550 

Wood  V.  Helme,  14  R.  I.  325,  593 

Wood  V.  Hitchcock,  20  Wend. (N. 

Y.)  47.  400 

Wood  V.  Humphrey,   114  Mass. 

185,  588 

Wood  V.  Hurd,  34  N.  J.  L.  87,  543 
Wood  V.  Keyes,  6  Paige  478,  189 

Wood  V.  Knapp,  100  N.  Y.  109,  452 
Wood  V.  McGuire's  Children,  63 

Am.  Dec.  246,  1122 

Wood  V.  McGuire,  17  Ga.  303,         791 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


cclxxxvii 


[Rpferencp.<<  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wood  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  32 

Wis.  398,  980 

Wood  V.    Nesbitt,  19    N.    Y.    S. 

423,  1137 

Wood  V.  Nortman,  85  IMo.  298, 

1048,  1049 
Wood  V.  Raymond,  42  Cal.  643,  1040 
Wood  V.  Riker,  1   Paige  Ch.   (N. 

Y.)  616,  381 

Wood  V.  Squires,  60  N.  Y.  191,  1139 
Wood  V.  State,  31  Fla.  221,  S.  C. 

12  So.  R.  o39,  1067 

Wood  V.  Steele,  6  Wall. (U.  S.)  80,  532 
Wood   V.  Stoddard,  2  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  194,  654 

Wood  V.  Surrells,  89  111.  107,  393 

Wood  V.  Sutcliffe,  2  Sim.  (N.  S.) 

163,  487 

Wood  V.  Treleven,  74  Wis.  577,  S. 

C.  43  N.  W.  R.  488,  596 

Wood  V.  Tiinnic'liff,  74  N.  Y.  38,  582 
Wood  V.Warner,  15  N.J.  Eq.  81,  283 
Wood    V.    Watkinson,    17    Conn. 

500,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  562,  443 

Wood  V.  Weimar,  104  U.  S.  786,  1128 
Wood  V.  Wilson,  4  Hous.  (Del.) 

94,  165 

Wood  V.  Wood,  5  Paige  596,  290 

Wood  V.  Wood,  52  N.  H.  422,  656 

Wood  V.  Wood,  78  Kv.  624,  458 

Wood  V.  Young,  38  la.  102,  608 

Wood  County  v.  Boreman,  34  W. 

Va.  362,  S.'C.  12  S.  E.  R.  490,      483 
Wood  River  Bank  v.  Kelley,  29 

Neb.  590,  800 

Woodburn  v.Chamberlin,17Barb. 

446,  1040 

Woodbury  v.  ^Maguire,  42  la.  339,  446 
Woodcock  V.  Bennett,!  Cow.  711,  919 
Wooddridge    v.    Brown,    1   Tex. 

478,  1197 

Wooden  v.   Strew,  10  How.  Pr. 

(N.Y.)48,  1211 

Woodfill  V.  Patton,  76  Ind.  575,  1103 
Woodfolk  V.  State,  85  Ga.  69,  S. 

C.  11  S.  E.  R.  814,  224 

Woodfolk  V.  Whitworth,  5  Coldw. 

(Tenn.)  561,  474 

Woodhouse   v.  Fillbates,   77  Va. 

317,  320 

Woodliffe    V.    Connor,   45  Miss. 

552,  456 

Woodman    v.  Churchill,   51   Me. 

112,  804 

Woodman  v.  Smith,  37  Me.  21,  433 
Woodrow  V.  O'Conner,  28  Vt.  776,  592 
Woodrow  v.Younser.  (H  Mo.  395,  632 
Woodruff  V.  Bowles,  104  N.  Car. 

197.  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  482,  540 

Woodruff  V.  Garner,  39  Ind.  246,    512 


.  1-G02,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60S-1244.] 
Woodruff  V.  Jabine  (Ark.),  15  S. 

W.  R.  830,  1211,1213 

Woodruff  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

59  Conn.  63,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  17,  527 
Woodruff  V.  Rose,  43  Ala.  382,  1183 
Woodruff  v.Trapnall,  12  Ark.  640,  402 
Woods  V.   Dickin.son,    7    Mackev 

301,  S.  C.  IS  Wa.sli.  L.  R.  5,  "  606 
Woods  V.  Freeman,  1  Wall.. 398,  1191 
Woods  V.  Montovallo,  etc.,  Co.,  84 

Ala.  560,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  393,  551 
Woods  V.  Page,  37  \'t.  252,  574,  601 
Woods  V.  Rowan,  5  Johns.  (N.Y.) 

133,  652 

Woods  V.  State,  134  Ind.  3.5,  S.  C. 

33  N.  E.  R.  901,  660 

Woods  V.  State,  10  Mo.  698,  1171 

Woodstock    Iron   Co.   v.   Fullen- 

wider,  87  Ala.584,  344 

Woodward  v.  Blanchard,  16   111. 

424,  551 

Woodward  v.  Davis,  127  Ind.  172, 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  687,  396,  1115 

Woodward  v.  Horst.  10  la.  120,  1166 
Woodward   v.    Newhall,  1    Pick. 

500,  1194 

Woodward  v.  Purdy,  20  Ala.  379,  521 
Woodward  v.  Wons,  18  Ind.  296,  434 
Woodward  v.  Woodson,  6  Munf. 

(Va.)  227,  1100 

Woodward  v.  Woodward,  4  Halst. 

(N.  J.)  115,  199 

Woodworth  v.  McGovern,  52  Vt. 

318,  591 

Woodworth    v.    Spring,   4    Allen 

321,  292 

Woody  V.  Pickard,  8  Blackf.(Ind.) 

55,  598 

Woolenslagle  v.  Runals,  76  Mich. 

545,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  454,  540 

Woolery   v.   Gravson,    110     Ind. 

149,  '  1199 

Woolery  v.  Rv.  Co.,  107  Ind.  381, 

1082 
Woolerv,  Admr.,v.  Louisville,  N. 

A.  &  C.  Rv.  Co.,  107  Ind.  381,  546 
Woollen  v.  Whitacre,  91  Ind.  502, 

1089,  1090,  1100 
Woollen  V.  Wire,  110  Ind.  251,  S. 

C.  11  N.  E.  R.  236,  663 

Woollev  V.  Newcombe,  58  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  480,  529 

WooUey  v.  State,  8  Ind.  377,  1184 

Woolrine's  Admr.  v.  Chesapeake, 

etc.,  Co.,  36  W.  Va.  329,  S.  C. 

15S.  E.  R.81,  369 

AVoolsev  V.  EUenville,  15  N.   Y. 

Supp."647,  549 

Wooster  v.  Glover,  37  Conn.  315, 

190,  1244 


cclxxxviii 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 


Wooster  v.  Burr,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

295,  1046 

Wooten  V.  Nail,  18  Ga.  609,  520 

AVooters    v.   Kauffman,   67    Tex. 

488,  1194 

AVord  V.  Com.,  3  Leigh  (Va.)  743,  818 
Word  V.  Word,  90  Ala.  81,  S.  C.  7 

So.  R.  412,  195 

AVork  V.  State,  2  Ohio  St.  296,  S. 

C.  59  Am.  Dec.  671,  643 

Works  V.  Stevens,  76  Ind.  181,  1070 
Worley  v.  Moore,  97  Ind. 15,  820, 1081 
Wormelev  V.  Com.,10Gratt.  (Va.) 

6o8.       '  800 

Wormell  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

79  Me.  397,  1055 

Worrall  v.  Parmelee,  1  N.  Y.  519, 

S.  C.  49  Am.  Dec.  350,  718 

Worseley  v.   DeMattos,    1    Burr. 

467,  540 

AVorsham  v.  Goar,  4  Port.  (Ala.) 

441,  678 

Worsham  v.  Murchison,  66  Ga. 

715,  232,  234 

Worthington  v.  Cent.  Vt.  R.  R. 
Co.,  64  Vt.  107,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R. 
590,  547 

Worthington  v.  Mencer  (Ala.),  11 

So.  R.  72,  516 

Wrav  V.  Carpenter,  16  Col.  271,  S. 

C.27Pac.  R.  248,  1159 

Wray  v.  Hill,  85  Ind.  546, 

185,  1109,  1151 
Wrav  V.  Tindall,  45  Ind.  517,  1169 
Wreford,  Ex  parte,  40  Ala.  378,  138 
Wright,  In  re,  134  U.  S.  136,  188 

Wright  V.  Abbott,  85  Ind.  154,        676 
Wright  V.  Bank  of  Metropolis,  110 
N.  Y.  237,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R. 
356  553 

Wright  V.  Beckett,  1  Mood.  &  R. 

414,  796 

Wright  V.  Boon,  2  Greene  (la.) 

458,  228 

Wright  V.  Bosworth,  7  N.  H.  590,  472 
Wright  v.Boynton,  40  N.H.  353,  1166 
Wright  V.  Cabot,  89  N.  Y.  570,  514 
Wright  V.  Carpenter,  49  Cal.  607, 

813,  814 
Wright  V.  Defrees,  8  Ind.  298,  117 
AVright  V.  Edwards,  10  Ore.  298,  318 
Wright  V.  Fletcher,  12  Vt.  431,  183 
Wright  V.  Gillespie,  43  Mo.  App. 

244,  720 

Wright  V.  Griffith,  121  Ind.  478,  S. 

C.  6  L.  R.  A.  639;  413 

Wright  V.  Huron  County  Clerk,  48 

Mif;h.  642,  205 

Wriglit  V.  .ludge  of  Superior  Ct., 
41  Mich.  726,  1240 


Wright  V.  Lothrop,  149  Mass.  385, 

S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  963,  541 

Wright  V.  Maiden,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

4  Allen  (Mass.)  283,  546 

Wright  V.  Manns,  111  Ind.  422, 

196,  379 
Wright  V.  Marsh,  2  Greene  (la.) 

94,  320 

Wright  V.  McCampbell,  75  Tex. 

644,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  293,  409 

Wright  V.  Miller,  63  Ind.  220,  361 

Wright  V.  .Alillikin,   152   Pa.   St. 

507,  S.  C.  25  Atl.  Rep.  756,     604,  610 
Wright  V.  Pender,  Aleyn  18,  1025 

Wright  V.  Phillii^s,  2  G.  Greene 

(la.)   191  1122 

Wright  V.  Raddin,  100  Mass.  319,  576 
Wright  V.  Rodgers,  26  Ind.  218,  1181 
Wright  V.  State,  8  Blackf.   (Ind.) 

385,  1116 

Wright  V.  Strauss,  73  Ala.  227,  373 
AVright  V.  Swanson,  46  Ala.  708,  472 
AV right  V.  Tichenor,  104  Ind.  185,  371 
AVright  V.  Ware  50  Ala.  549,  241 

Wright     V.    AVarner,     1      Doug. 

(Mich.)  384,  297 

AVright    V.    AVeisinger,  5  Sm.    & 

AI.  210,  327 

AVright  V.  Williams,  47  A't.  222,  740 
Wright  V.  A^oung,  6   Wis.  127,  S. 

C.  70  Am.  Dec.  453,  402 

AVright's  Admr.  v.  Northwestern 
Alut.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  91  Ky.  208, 
S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  242,  675 

AVrigley,  In  re,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

134,  464 

AVroe  v.  Greer.  2  Swan.  172,  218 

Wroe  v.  State,  20  Ohio  St.  460,  797 
AVrolsen  v.  Anderson  (Minn.),  55 

N.  AV.  R.  597,  610 

Wunstel  V.  Landry,  39   La.  Ann. 

312,  S.  C.  1  So.  Rep.  893,       275,  444 
Wvandotte,  City  of,  v.  Gibson,  25 

kan.  236,  1093 

Wyandotte,  City  of,  v.  AVhite,  13 

Kan.  191,  1097 

Wyandotte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robinson. 

34  Mich  428,  174 

AVyatt   V.  Bailey,    1    Morr.    (la.) 

396  393 

Wyatt  V.  Benson,  23  Barb.  N.  Y. 

327,  581,  584 

AVyatt  V.  Lynchburgh,  etc.,  Co., 
110  N.  Car.  245,  S.  C.  14  S.  E. 
Rep.  683,  574 

AVvatt  V.  People,  16  Col.  252,  S.  C. 

28  Pac.  R.  961,  170 

Wvatt  V.  Rambo,  29  Ala.  510,  S. 

C.  68  Am.  Dec.  89,  165,  323 

Wvatt  V.  Steele,  26  Ala.  639,     322,  536 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cclxxxix 


[References  are  to  Parjes,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Wyers  v.  State,  21  Tex.  App.  448,     232 
Wyley  v.  Bull,  41  Kan.  2U<3,  S.  C. 

20  Pac.  R.  855,  1112 

Wyman  v.  Felker,  18  Col.  382,  S. 

C.  33  Pac.  R.  157,  1082 

Wyman  v.  Winslow,  11  Me.  398, 

S.  C.  2G  Am.  Dec.  542,  401 

Wyngert  v.  Norton,  4  Mich.  286,     736 
Wynk(K)n   V.    Coocb,   89    Pa.  St. 

450,  349 

Wynn  v.  Lee,  5  Ga.  217,  821 

Wynn  v.  Lord  Neuborough,  3  Bro. 

C.  C.  88,  409 

Wynn  v.  State,  1  Blackf.  (Iml.) 

28,  1113 

Wynn  v.  Troy,  lOP  Ind.  250,  1151 

Wynn     v.    Wyatt's     Admx.,  11 

Leigh  (Va.)  584,  614 

Wynne  v.  Cornelison,52  Ind.  312,     367 
Wynne  v.  State,  56  Ga.  113,  809 


Yaeeer  v.  City  of  Henry,  39  111. 

App.  21,  609 

Yancy  v.Teter,39Ind.305,     1200, 1201 
Yanez  v.  State,  6  Tex.  App.  429, 

S.  C.  32  Am.  R.  591,  665 

Yant  V.  Harvy,  55  la.  421,  33 

Yaple  V.  Titus,  41  Pa.  St.  195,         327 
Yarborough  v.  Leggett,   14  Tex. 

677,  582 

Yarbrough,  Ex  parte,  120  U.  S. 

651,  243 

Yarbrough  v.  State,  70  Miss.  593, 

S.  C.  12  So.  R.  551,  820 

Yard  v.  Ocean  Beach  Assn. ,49  N. 

J.  Eq.  306,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  729,    371 
Yate  V.  Willan,  2  East  128,  399 

Yater  v.  Mullen,  23  Ind.  562,  619 

Yater  v.  State,  58  Ind.  299,      629,  636 
Yates  V.  Kinnev,  33  Neb.  853,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  R.  230,  570 

Yates  V.  Lancing,  5  Johns.  282, 

240,  259 
Yates  V.  McCullough  Iron  Co.,  69 

Md.  370,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  280,       536 
Yates  V.  People,  38  111.  527,  813 

Yates  V.  Russell,  17  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  461,  591 

Yavapai  Co.  v.  O'Neil  (Ariz.),  29 

Pac.  R.  430,  505 

Ybarra  v.  Sylvanv  (Cal.),  31  Pac. 

R.  1114,  1145 

Yeager  v.  Groves,  78  Ky.  278,         429 
Yeamans  v.  Yeamans,  99  Mass. 

585,  595 

Yeats  V.  Ballentine,  56  Mo.  530,      406 
s 


.  l-fJO-J,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.] 
Yentzer  v.  Thayer,  10  Col.  63,  S. 

C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  563,  320 

Yerkes  v.  Norris,  90  Mich.  234,  S. 

C.  51  N.  W.  R.  366,  550 

Yerks  v,  Sabin,  97  Ind.  141, 

1107,  1147 
Yingling  v.  Hesson,  16  Md.  112, 

675,  680 

Yniestra  v.  Tarleton,  67  Ala.  126,  367 
Yolo  Countv  V.   Knight,  70  Cal. 

431,  "  457 

Yoe  V.  People,  49  111.  410,  820,  823 
Yore  V.  .Alurphy,  10  Mont.  304,  S. 

C.  25  Pac.  R.  1039,  627 

York  V.  Briglit,  4  Humph.  312,  368 
York  V.  Fortenburv,  15  Col.  139, 

S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  l"63,  1229 

Y^ork,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  18 

How.  (U.  S.)  246,  599 

York  V.  Pease,  2  Gray  282,  705 

Y'ork  V.  State,  137  U.  S.  15,  S.  C. 

11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  9,  614 

Y^ork  V.  State,  73  Tex.  651,  S.  C. 

lis.  W.  R.  869,  444,614 

Yost  V.  Conrov,  92  Ind.  464,  S.  C. 

47  Am.  R.  lo6,  738,  739,  1233 

Y'ost  V.  Grim,  116  Pa.  St.  527,  382 

Yost  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Works, 

41  111.  App.  556,  783 

Young  V.  Arntze,  86  Ala.  116,  S. 

C. 5  So.  R.  253,  556 

Y^oung  V.  Bennett,  7  Bush  (Ky.) 

474,  1234 

Y'oung  V.  Berger,  132  Ind.  530,  S. 

C.  32  N.  E.  R.  318,  1108,  1147 

Y^oung  V.  Black,  7  Cranch  565, 

1024,  1030 
Y^oung  V.  Brady,  94  Cal.  128,  800 

Y'oung  V.  Bridges,  34  La.  Ann. 

333,  657 

Y^oung  V.   Buckingham,   5    Ohio 

485,  182 

Young  V.  Burhans,  80  Wis.  438, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  343,  556 

Y^oung  V.  Burlineton.etc,  Co.,  79 

la.  415,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R.693,  1051 
Y^oung  V.  Campbell,  75  N.  Y.  525,  491 
Young  V.  Cooper,  12  Neb.  610,  465 
Young  V.  Dickey.  63  Ind.  31,  614 

Young  V.  Gundy.  6  Cranch  51,  1178 
Young  V.  J(ihnson,  123  N.  Y.  226,  660 
Young  V.  Kinney,  48  Vt.  22,  596 

Y'oung  V.  Ledricic,  14  Kan.  92, 

178,  213 
Young    V.    Marine    Ins.    Co.,    1 

Cranch  C.  C.  452,  656 

Young  V.  Martin,  8  Wall.  354, 

182,  1222 
Y'oung  V.  Nelson,  25  111.  565,  464 


ccxc 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[Beferences  are  to  Pages,  Vol.  I,  pp 
Young  V.  Reynolds,  4  Md.  375,       593 
Young  V.  Rollins,  85  N.  Car.  485, 

S.  C.  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ry.  Cases 

455,  194 

Young  V.  Sellers,  106  Ind.  101, 

168,  241 
Young  V.  Sevmour,  4  Neb.  86,  1116 
Young  V.  Slaughterford,  11  Mod. 

228,  653 

Young  V.  State  Bank,  4  Ind.  301, 

S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec.  630,  117,  1197 
Youngv.Wells,97Ind.410,  322,  427 
Young  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

65  N.  Y. 163,  412 

Young  V.  Young,  91  N.  Car.  359,    292 
Youngblood  v.  Schamp,  15  N.  J. 

Eq.  42,  486 

Youngman  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  65  Pa.  St.  278,  427 

Yuengeling  v.  Johnson,  1  Hughes 

607,  487 

Yznaga  Del  Valle  v.  Harrison,  93 

U.  S.  133,  1203 


z 


Zabel  V.  Nyenhuis,  83  la.  766,  S. 

C.  49  N.  W.  R.  999  619 

Zahradnicek  v.  Selby[  15  Neb.  579,  449 
Zaleski  v.  Clark,  45  Conn.  397,  1156 
Zell  V.  Johnston,  76  N.  Car.  302,  593 
ZeU  V.  McHenry,  51  la.  572,  643 


,  1-602,  Vol.  II,  pp.  603-1244.1 
Zeller  v.  City  of  Crawfordsville, 

90  Ind.  262,  207,  1139 

Zeller  v.  Martin,  84  Wis.  4,  S.  C. 

54  N.  W.  R.  330,  629 

Zenor  v.  Johnson,  107  Ind.  69,      1070 
Zerfass'  Appeal,  135  Pa.  St.  522,  S. 

C.  19  Atl.  R.  1056,  287 

Ziegenhager  v.  Doe,  1  Ind.  296,      468 
Ziegler  v.  South.  &  North.  Ala.  R. 

R.  Co.,  58  Ala.  494,  424 

Zimmer  v.  Matteson,  15  N.  Y.  S. 

607,  635 

Zimmerman  v.  Franke,  34  Kan. 

650,  S.  C.  9  Pac.  R.  747,  282 

Zimmerman  v.  Kinkle,  108  N.  Y. 

282,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  407,  529 

Zimmerman  v.Klingeman,31  Neb. 

495,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  268,  1234 

Zitske  V.  Goldberg,  38  Wis.  216,     610 
Zobieskie  v.  Bauder,  1  Cai.(N.Y.) 

487,  627 

Zodolski  V.  State,  82  Wis.  580,  S. 

C.  52N.W.  Rep.  778,  695 

Zoller  V.  McDonald,  23  Cal.  136,     1180 
Zonker  v.  Cowan,  84  Ind.  395, 

159,  229 
Zopfi  V.  Postal  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  60 

Fed.  R.  987,  984,  1056 

Zuber  v.  Geigar,  2  Yeates  (Pa.) 

522,  1120 

Zucker  v.  Karples,  88  Mich.  413, 

S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  373,  1087 

Zurcher  v.  Magee,  2  Ala.  253,         197 


THE  WORK  OUT  OF  COURT. 


CHAPTER  I. 


LEARNING    AND    PREPARING    THE    FACTS. 


§1. 

Value  of  preparation. 

§26. 

2. 

Genius  of  success. 

3. 

Study  of  the  case. 

27. 

4. 

Mastering  the  facts. 

28. 

5. 

Examining  the  witnesses. 

6. 

Object  of  preliminary  examina- 
tion. 

29. 

7. 

Things  seen. 

30. 

8. 

Maps,  plans  and  photographs. 

31. 

9. 

Suggestions  to  witnesses. 

10. 

Evils  of  coaching  witnesses. 

11. 

Chitty's  advice. 

32. 

.12. 

Harm  caused  by  a  bad  witness. 

33. 

13. 

Cautioning  witnesses. 

34. 

14. 

Duty  of  advocate  in  consultation 
with  witnesses. 

35. 

15. 

Inspection  of   written   instru- 
ments. 

36. 

16. 

Copies  should  not  be  depended 

37. 

upon. 

38. 

17. 

Client's  statement  of  contents  not 

39. 

to  be  trusted. 

40. 

18. 

Circumstances  aid  work  of  con- 

struction. 

41. 

19. 

Circumstances  may  create  prob- 

42. 

ability. 

43. 

20. 

Influence  of  probability. 

44. 

21. 

Inferences. 

45. 

22. 

Groundwork  of  inference. 

23. 

Difference  between  facts  and  evi- 
dence. 

46. 

24. 

Marks  of  things. 

47. 

25. 

"Fact"    not    synonymous   with 

"truth." 

48. 

Chief  object  of  preparatory  in- 
vestigation. 

Rules  of  induction  to  be  observed. 

Witness  should  be  allowed  to  tell 
his  own  story. 

Securing  knowledge  of  unfavor- 
able evidence. 

Meeting  unfavorable  evidence. 

Difference  between  gathering  ma- 
terials and  presenting  case  in 
court. 

Committing  evidence  to  memory. 

Nature  of  evidence. 

Use  of  crude  materials. 

Means  of  making  facts  evident  to 
jury. 

Ascertaining  reputation  of  wit- 
nesses. 

Identification  of  persons. 

Means  of  identifying  persons. 

Identity  of  animals. 

Identity  of  inanimate  personal 
property. 

Identifying  real  property. 

Identifying  documents. 

Examination  of  client. 

Control  of  the  case. 

Tendency  of  clients  to  exagger- 
ate. 

Written  statements  no  substitute 
for  personal  examination. 

Information  as  to  client's  busi- 
ness. 

Prejudice  of  jurors. 


(1) 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§1 
§  49.    Object  of  procuring  knowledge    §  52.    Fastening  the  facts  in  the  mind 


60. 


51. 


of  client's  standing 

Necessity  of  consultation  with 
witnesses. 

Reasons  for  promptly  examin- 
ing witnesses. 


53.  Assumption  tliat  client  does  not 

know  the  law. 

54.  Taking  client's  opinion. 


§  1.  Value  of  preparation. — Preparation  is  the  foundation 
of  success  in  advocacy.  Neither  genius  nor  talent,  neither  tact 
nor  cunning,  can  equip  an  advocate  to  try  a  cause  as  it  is  the 
duty  of  advocates  to  try  causes,  without  a  foundation  well  laid 
by  thorough  and  complete  preparation.  The  first  step  is  to 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  facts. ^  It  is  not  enough  to  obtain 
a  knowledge  of  them  in  outline  ;  they  must  be  known  in  their 
breadth  and  depth  and  in  their  relation  to  each  other  and  to 
the  ruling  principles  of  law.^     Cicero  says  :     "  What  Socrates 


'"Master  your  facts  and  act  only 
when  you  are  cool,  are  the  maxims  of 
Lord  Justice  Lindley  for  the  young 
practitioner."  23  Am.  Law  Review, 
579. 

*  Sir  Charles  Russell's  description  of 
his  mode  of  working  is  interesting  and 
instructive.  "If  you  ask  me,"  said 
this  accomplished  advocate  in  answer 
to  a  question  addressed  to  him  by  a 
reporter,  "  to  reduce  the  common  habit 
of  my  life  to  a  formula,  I  will  tell  you 
that  I  have  only  four  ways  of  prepar- 
ing my  work.  First.  I  do  one  thing 
at  a  time,  whether  it  is  reading  a  brief 
or  eating  oysters,  concentrating  what- 
ever faculties  I  am  endowed  with  upon 
what  I  am  doing  at  the  moment.  Sec- 
ondly. When  dealing  with  compli- 
cated facts,  to  arrange  the  narrative  of 
events  in  the  order  of  date— a  simple 
rule  not  always  acted  upon,  but  which 
enables  you  to  unravel  the  most  com- 
plicated story,  and  to  see  the  relation 
of  one  set  of  facts  to  another  set  of 
facts.  My  third  rule  is  never  to 
trouble  about  authorities  or  case  law 
supjjosed  to  bear  on  a  particular  (jnes- 
tion  until  I  have  accurately  and  delin- 


itely  ascertained  the  precise  facts. 
This  last  rule  is  one  which  the  profes- 
sional man  will  appreciate  better,  per- 
haps, than  the  layman.  It  is  not  only 
valuable — I  may  say  this  as  I  did  not 
invent  it — but  very  interesting  to 
me,  individually,  as  I  got  it  from  Lord 
Westbury  when  a  young  man  at  the 
bar  and  pleading  before  him.  I  was 
plunging  into  a  citation  of  cases,  when 
he  very  good-naturedly  pulled  me  up 
and  said :  '  Mr.  Russell,  don't  trouble 
yourself  with  the  authorities  until  we 
have  ascertained  with  precision  the 
facts,  and  then  we  shall  probably  find 
that  a  number  of  the  authorities  which 
seem  to  bear  some  relation  to  the  case 
have  really  nothing  important  to  do 
with  it.'  My  fourth  rule  is  to  try  and 
api)ly  the  judicial  faculty  to  my  own 
case  in  order  to  determine  what  are  its 
strong  and  weak  points,  and  in  order 
to  settle  in  my  own  mind  what  is  the 
turniiig  point  in  the  case.  This 
method  enables  you  to  discard  irrele- 
vant topics  and  to  mass  your  strength 
on  the  point  on  which  the  case  hinges." 
39  Alb.  Law  Journal,  304. 


§  2  LEARNING    AND    IMlKI'AUINci    TIIK    FACTS.  3 

used  to  say,  that  all  men  are  sufficiently  eloquent  in  that  which 
they  understand,  is  very  plausible  but  not  true.  It  would  have 
been  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  no  man  can  be  eloquent  on  a 
subject  that  he  does  not  understand."'  Xo  man  can  be  strong 
where  his  knowledge  of  his  subject  is  feeble.  Preparation  alone 
supplies  the  knowledge  which  makes  trial  lawyers  strong.^ 
Biographers  of  advocates,  like  biographers  of  military  heroes, 
sometimes  take  up  the  pen  of  the  romancer,  and,  to  magnify 
the  man  of  whom  they  w^rite,  invent  pleasant  fictions.  It  is  to 
this  class  of  biographers  that  legal  literature  owes  many  stories 
of  verdicts  won,  as  they  say,  "  by  a  flash  of  wit  or  a  torrent  of 
eloquence."  There  is  more  of  rhetorical  flourish  than  of  sober 
truth  in  these  stories.  For  the  most  part,  legal  controversies 
are  not  fields  for  display,  but  fields  for  hard  work.  The  power 
of  the  advocate  does,  indeed,  often  carry  the  verdict,  but  the 
foundation  of  this  power  is  preparation. 

§  2.  Genius  of  success. — The  genius  of  success  in  the  con- 
tests of  the  forum  is  the  genius  of  hard  work.  The  man  who 
goes  into  the  contests  of  the  forum  without  careful  preparation, 
relying  on  his  wit  or  his  eloquence,  will  go  "sounding  on  a 
dim  and  perilous  way."  "Diligence,"  Cicero  maintains,  '  is 
capable  of  effecting  almost  everything,"^  and  at  no  point  in 
advocacy  is  diligence  more  powerful  than  at  the  outset.  Dili- 
gence in  preparation  is,  to  borrow  again  from  Cicero,  the  one 
virtue  "in  whicli  all  other  virtues  are  comprehended."* 
Speeches  that  are  lauded  as  remarkable  examples  of  extempo- 
raneous speaking  are  almost  always  found,  when  tne  truth  is 
known,  to  be  the  result  of  careful  and  laborious  preparation. 
Webster's  reply  to  Hayne  was  not  the  result  of  a  night's  delib- 
eration, but,  as  he  himself  said,  was  the  product  of  long  years 
of  thought.  If  ever  a  man  was  gifted  with  genius  great  enough 
to  make  him  disdain  the  aid  of  preparation,  it  was  Daniel  Web- 
ster, and  yet  he  would  not  speak  without  preparation.     The 

*  Orators  and  Oratory,  Bk.  I,  xiv.        thing  as  extemporaneous  acquisition." 

'"Young  man,"  said  Daniel  Web-        'Orators  and  Oratoiy,  Bk.  II,  xxxv. 

ster  to  the  preacher,  "  there  is  no  sucli        *  Orators  and  Oratory,  Rk.  II,  xxxv. 


4  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  3 

secret  of  his  success  is  disclosed  in  the  well-known  anecdote 
which  represents  him  as  saying  to  a  friend:  "If  there  .be  so 
much  weight  in  my  words  as  you  represent,  it  is  because  I  do 
not  allow  myself  to  speak  on  any  subject  until  my  mind  is 
thoroughly  imbued  with  it." 

§  3.  Study  of  the  case. — Those  consummate  masters  of  for- 
ensic oratory,  Cicero  and  Quintilian,  with  strong  words,  often 
repeated,  impress  upon  the  advocate  the  necessity  of  a  thorough 
study  of  the  causes  he  undertakes.'  This  study  is  even  more 
important  now  than  when  they  wrote,  for  men  in  these  days 
look  more  to  the  words  of  the  witnesses  than  to  those  of  the  ad- 
vocates. In  theory  the  truth  comes  from  the  witnesses,  how- 
ever it  may  be  in  fact,  but  in  Rome  this  was  scarcely  so,  even 
in  theory.  The  study  of  the  facts  is  not  so  much  for  the  sake 
of  the  argument  as  these  great  authors  teach,  for  it  is  essential 
in  other  particulars  even  more  important.  Preparation  is  not 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument  alone,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  case, 
although  it  gives  a  strength  and  power  to  the  argument  that 
without  it  would  be  utterly  wanting.  Mr.  Harris,  employing 
the  nomenclature  of  the  turf,  says :  "In  five  cases  out  of  six  I 
would  back  the  advocate  and  not  the  case."^  But  this,  we 
venture  to  affirm,  is  not  true  of  advocacy  in  America,  whatever 
may  be  said  of  it  as  applied  to  the  English  practice,  where  the 
attorneys,  and  not  the  advocates,  prepare  the  cases.  The  only 
safe  rule  for  an  advocate  is  to  be  sure  that  he  has  constructed  a 
strong  theory,  and  is  provided  with  the  essential  principles  of 
law  and  the  necessary  facts  to  maintain  it.  Neither  judges  nor 
jurors  can  be  carried  to  a  favorable  conclusion  by  the  mere  work 
of  the  advocate  in  court,  although  much  may  there  be  done  to 
turn  the  oftentimes  doubtful  fortunes  of  the  contest. 

§  4.  Mastering  the  facts.— Where  the  contest  is  not  to  be 
fought  solely  upon  questions  of  law  the  advocate  must  make 

'"Our  first  precept,"  says  Cicero,  a  minute  and  thorough  knowledge  of 
shall  be:    " That  whatever  causes  he    them." 

undertakes  to  plead,  he  must  acquire        '  Illustrations   in   Advocacy,  Chap. 

II,  1. 


§4  LEARNING    AND    PREPARINO    THE    FACTS.  5 

himself  a  master  of  all  the  facts.'  It  is  not  sufficient  tliat  he 
gain  a  general  knowledge  of  them  ;  his  duty  is  poorly  done  if 
he  does  not  obtain  a  complete  mastery  of  all  the  details. ^  Little 
things  often  decide  big  ones.^  A  hole  in  the  bottom  of  a  ship, 
even  though  it  be  not  a  large  one,  may  work  destruction  as  ef- 
fectually as  a  great  one ;  and  a  little  hurt,  though  it  be  "not  so 
deep  as  a  well  nor  so  wide  as  a  church  door,"  may  cause  death. 
Quintilian's  advice  is  as  valuable  now  as  it  was  in  the  days 
when  the  Roman  lawyers  aroused  the  applause  of  listening 
multitudes  in  the  Forum  of  Rome.  The  young  advocate  will 
be  wise  to  study  it  with  care,  and  even  the  veteran  will  find 
profit  in  often  recurring  to  it.""  The  information  gathered  from 
the  client  is  the  basis  of  the  investigation  of  the  facts,  and  the 
counsel  should  draw  from  him  all  his  knowledge  of  the  facts 
as  well  as  his  inferences  and  hypotheses.  Where  the  matters 
of  which  the  client  speaks  are  not  susceptible  of  direct  proof, 
or  where  they  are  not  physical  facts,  it  is  well  enough  to  ascer- 
tain the  inferences  and  the  hypotheses  that  the  client  has 
framed ;  but  these  must  not  be  accepted  without  having  been 
thoroughly  examined  and  tested,  for  it  is  to  be  expected  that 
the  interest  of  the  client  will  so  bias  his  mind  that  his  mental 
processes  will  neither  be  accurate  nor  just. 

'  Mr.  Besant,  in  "The  Ivory  Gate,"  be  industrious,  but,  to  use  an  express- 
makes  his  soHcitor,  Mr.  Dering,  say,  ion  of  a  learned  friend  of  mine,  '  He 
"  I  think  nothing;  I  want  the  facts."  must  have  an  almost  ignominious  love 
The  advocate,  in  his  consultation  with  of  details.'  " 

his  client,  should  demand  the  facts,  3"  Trifles,"   said   Michael    Angelo, 

and  should  be  content  with  nothing  "make  perfection,  and  perfection  is 

]ess.  no  trifle."     "  Life,"  says  Oliver  Wen- 

Mt  has  been  said  of   Carlyle,  that  dell    Holmes,  "is  a  great  bundle  of 

one  of  the  elements  of  his  power  was  little  things." 

"his  almost  excessive  love  of  details."  *  Quintilian's    Inst.,   7,    8,    12,    13. 

Emerson,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Car-  Cicero's  course   was   much   like  that 

lyle,  says:    "I  think  you  see  as  pict-  which  Quintilian  commends.   Orators 

ures  every  street,  church,  Parliament  and  Oratory,  II,  xxiv.     And  Webster 

House,  barracks,  baker's-shop,    mut-  said    of    Judge    Parsons,    "  'Tis    not 

ton-stall,  forge,  wharf  and  ship,  and  enough  for  him  that  he  has  learned 

whatever    stands,     creeps,     rolls    or  the  leading  points  of  a  case,  he  must 

swims  thereabout,  and  make  all  your  know  everything."      Harvey's  Rem- 

own."     "  ^ly  man  who  is  to  succeed,"  iniscences  of  Webster,  82. 
says  Sir  Arthur  Helps,  "  must  not  only 


6  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  5 

§  5.  Examinino^  the  witnesses. — The  advocate's  duty  is  not 
at  an  end  when  he  has  examined,  no  matter  how  exhaustively, 
his  client;  he  must  see  and  talk  with  his  witnesses.  In  this 
respect  the  American  lawyer  has  a  great  advantage  over  the 
English  barrister,  for  the  strict  rules  of  English  practice  pre- 
vent the  barrister  from  holding  a  personal  interview  with  the 
witnesses.'  Lord  Tenterden  said  :  "It  is  of  the  very  greatest 
importance,  as  regards  the  result  of  a  trial,  that  the  principal 
attorney  himself  should,  in  due  time,  examine  the  witnesses 
and  take  down  the  result  in  writing."  Mr.  Chitty's  advice  is 
that,  "Either  the  principal  or  a  very  experienced  clerk,  who 
will  afterward  attend  at  the  consultation  and  to  the  conduct  of 
the  cause  at  the  trial,  and  who  will  be  above  the  suspicion  of 
tampering  with  the  witnesses,  should  personally,  and  in  the 
absence  of  his  client,  see  and  examine  each  witness  apart  from 
the  other,  so  that  one  may  not  influence  the  other  as  to  the  ex- 
act testimony  he  will  give,  and  he  should  particularly  inquire 
whether  he  has  any  interest  in  the  event  of  the  action,  or 
whether  there  are  any  circumstances  which  might  affect  his 
competency  in  the  opinion  of  the  judge  or  his  credit  in  the  es- 
timation of  the  jury."^ 

§  6.  Object  of  preliminary  examination. — The  chief  purpose 
of  the  preliminary  examination  of  the  witnesses  is,  doubtless,  to 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  information  they  possess;  but  an- 
other purpose,  scarcely  less  important,  is  to  secure  a  knowledge 
of  each  witness.  Witnesses  differ  very  greatly  in  their  mental 
characteristics  and  habits  of  thought,  and  one  method  of  exam- 
ination will  not  be  successful  with  all.  To  successfully  ex- 
amine a  witness  the  advocate  should  know  the  person  with 
whom  he  has  to  deal.  He  should  mold  his  method  of  examina- 
tion to  the  temperament  and  intelligence  of  eacli  witness  that 
comes  upon  the  stand.  There  will  be  the  dull  witness  to  be 
drawn  out  with  plain  and  homely  questions  slowly  put,  the 

'See  5  Corp.  &  R'y  .Jour.  143.     In    sameasthatof  the  American  advocate, 
this  respect  the  French  practice  is  the     Hist.  French  Advocates. 

^3  Chitty's  General  Practice,  821. 


§  7  LEARNING    AND    PRKPAKINO    THK    FACTS.  7 

impulsive  witness  to  be  subdued  and  checked,  the  timid  wit- 
ness to  be  encouraged  and  supported,  the  swift  witness  to  be 
controlled  and  kept  to  the  facts.  The  advocate  who  has  seen 
the  witnesses  face  to  face,  and  has  formed  his  judgment  of  their 
capacity  and  temperament,  will  be  much  better  (qualified  to  ex- 
amine them  on  the  trial  than  one  who  sees  them  for  the  first 
time  in  the  court-room.  There  is  still  another  advantage  to 
be  gained  from  a  personal  contact  with  the  witness,  and  that 
is  this:  the  witness  having  once  been  examined  by  the  advo- 
cate feels  confidence  in  himself,  as  he  knows  that  he  will  not 
be  conducted  over  treacherous  grounds  nor  led  into  dangerous 
places.'  So,  too,  a  personal  interview  with  the  witnesses  en- 
ables the  advocate  to  determine  whether  it  is  best  to  fully 
develop  the  testimony  of  the  witness  on  the  direct  examination, 
or  trust  to  the  cross-examination  to  bring  out  with  more 
strength  and  in  fuller  detail  the  facts  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  witness.  It  is  sometimes  expedient  to  leave  much  for  the 
cross-examination,  for  a  material  fact  elicited  on  cross-exam- 
ination strikes  harder  and  cuts  ^liarper  than  when  brought 
out  on  the  direct  examination;  but  as  there  is  always  a  great 
hazard  in  this  course,  it  is  only  to  be  adopted  when  the  way  is 
plain  and  clear. 

§  7.  Tilings  seen. — What  is  seen  is  more  strongly  grasped  by 
the  mind  and  more  firmly  retained  by  the  memory  than  what 
is  heard. 2  Hooker  says:  "That  which  we  drink  in  at  our 
ears  doth  not  so  piercingly  enter  as  that  which  the  mind  doth 
conceive  by  sight."  It  is  not  easy  for  even  the  best  trained 
mind  to  get  a  clear  conception  of  a  place  or  of  a  physical  thing 
from  a  description  given  in  words.  The  impression  produced 
upon  the  mind  by  an  inspection  of  the  place  or  thing  involved 
in  a  legal  controversy  is  much  more  accurate  and  enduring 
than  that  produced  by  a  verbal  description,  no  matter  how  ac- 
curate and  vivid  the  words  employed. 

'An  apt  illustration  of  the  statement  "Reminiscences    of    Webster,    "108. 

of  the  te.\t  is  supplied  by  Daniel  Web-  'Ram  on  Facts,  37.     "Things  seen 

ster's  handling  of  the  witness  Phelps  are    inightier     than     things    heard." 

in  the  "Smith  will  case."     Harvey's  Tennyson. 


8  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  8 

§  8.  Maps,  plans  and  photographs. — There  is  much  force  in 
Mr.  Chitty's  suggestion,  that  it  is  "very  material  to  have 
maps,  plans,  or  even  models  of  lands,  water-courses  and  build- 
ings carefully  prepared  and  their  correctness  proved  by  the  art- 
ist; and  many  important  cases  have,  for  the  want  of  the  infor- 
mation thereby  given,  failed  on.  the  trial.  "^  The  information 
imparted  by  maps,  plans,  and  the  like,  is  necessary  to  give  the 
counsel,  who  is  preparing  his  theory  of  the  case,  a  full  and 
clear  view  of  the  evidence,  as  well  as  to  assist  him  in  getting 
the  jury  to  understand  the  evidence  in  its  full  force.  Accuracy 
and  fidelity  must  be  insisted  upon  in  the  preparation  of  maps 
and  plans,  and  the  person  who  prepares  them  must  be  required 
to  make  them  clear  and  plain  so  that  they  can  be  readily  un- 
derstood by  the  jury.  The  art  of  photography  may  often  be 
made  very  useful,  both  in  preparing  and  in  presenting  the 
case.  Mr.  Irving  Browne  has  collected  a  number  of  cases  in 
which  the  art  of  the  photographer  rendered  important  assist- 
ance in  judicial  investigations.^ 

•  §  9.  Suggestions  to  witnesses. — On  the  ground  of  prudence, 
if  on  no  other,  it  is  better  not  to  make  suggestions  to  the  wit- 
nesses that  may  lead  them  to  give  false  testimony,  or  corruptly 
color  their  statements.  The  witness  who  feels  that  an  advocate, 
even  though  friendly  to  him,  knows  that  he  is  testifying  falsely, 
has  not  and  can  not  have  that  consciousness  of  safety  that  gives 
strength  to  the  testimony  of  a  witness  who  feels  that  his  wrong 
is  known  only  to  himself  ;  nor  can  such  a  witness  so  well  with- 
stand the  fire  of  a  cross-examination.  A  witness  invited  by  the 
demeanor  of  the  counsel  in  the  private  examination  to  color  his 
testimony  is  not  likely  to  maintain  himself  upon  the  stand,  and 
jurors  and  judges  are  quick  to  observe  and  distrust  a  witness 

>  3  Chitty's  General  Practic-e,  852.  C),  680;  Udderzook  v.  Com.,  76  Pa. 

*"  Humorous  Phases  of  The  Law,"  St.  340;   Blair  v.  Pelham,   118  Mass. 

413;   Locke  v.  S.,  C.    &  P.  R.  R.,  46  421;  Cozzens  ?;.  Higgins,  33  How.  Pr. 

Iowa,  109;  Conley  u.  People,  83  N.  Y.  436;  Church   v.  Milwaukee,   31   Wis. 

464;  Ebron  v.  Zimpleman,  47  Texas,  512;  Duffin  v.  People,  107  111.  113,  S. 

503,  S.  C.  26  Am.  Rep.  315;  Leathers  C.  47  Am.  Rep.  431. 
V.  Salvor  Wrecking  Co.,  2  Woods  (C. 


§  10  LEARNING    AND    PREPAKINO    THE    FACTS.  9 

who  seems  ill  at  ease.  It  is  better  to  keep  the  witness  on  the 
solid  ground  of  truth,  even  though  the  question  be  viewed  as 
one  of  expediency  merely,  for  when  that  ground  is  left  the 
witness  is  in  danger,  especially  if  he  is  aware  that  his  turpitude 
is  known  to  another. 

§  10.   Evils  of  coaching  witnesses. — The  "  coached  "  witness 
is    almost  always  a  bad  one.     But  no  advocate  ought  to  be 
guided  by  the  mere  dictates  of  prudence  in  such  a  matter  ;  his 
sole  guides  should  be  honor  and   integrity.     The   client  may 
have  a  right  to  his  talents  and  skill,  but  not  to  his  conscience 
and  integrity.      Nor  will  a  departure  from  the  path  of    honor 
lead  to  good  results,  for  no  man  that  really  possesses  the  char- 
acter and  talents  requisite  to  a  true  advocate  can  justly  and 
ably  present  a  cause  where  he  knows  that  he  has  corruptly  en- 
gaged in  the   fabrication  of  testimony.     A  guilty  conscience 
weakens  power,  and  the  advocate  who  must  praise  a  witness 
can  only  do  so  with  half  a  heart  when  he  knows  that  he  is  in 
league  with  him  in  a  criminal  scheme.     Power  and  guilt  are 
seldom  allies.     If  the  advocate  has  been  guilty  of  a  criminal  or 
dishonorable  act  it  will  much  impair  his  power,  for,  like  the 
thief  who  sees  an  officer  ''in  every  bush,"  little   things  will 
terrify  him,  the  fear  of  detection  will  unnerve  him,  and  in  the 
effort  to  shield   himself  he   will  lose   sight   of    the  important 
points  of  his  cause.     Nothing  makes  an  advocate  so  powerful 
as  to  feel  that  he  is  strong  in  his  own  integrity,  and  few  things 
weaken  him  more  than  the  dread  that  a  witness  may,  through 
the  pounding  of  the  cross-examination,  or  through  an  inad- 
vertent remark,  expose  the  guilty  effort  to  fabricate  testimony. 
One  great  reason  for  the  success  of  Rufus  Choate  was  his  deep 
conviction  that  he  was  in  the  right,  for  in  Ashton's  case  he 
said  :      "1  care  not  how  hard  the  case  is — it  may  bristle  with 
difficulties — if  I  feel  that  I  am  on  the  right  side,  that  case   I 
win."      It  is  not  difficult  for  the  advocate  who  is  himself  u\^- 
right  and  honest  to  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  client  is  in 
the  right,  for  men  naturally  repose  confidence  in  those  who 
come  to  them  for  counsel  and  assistance,  and  this  feeling  grows 


10  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  11 

as  the  relationship  continues.  All  men  grow  earnest  in  behalf 
of  the  persons  whose  cause  they  espouse ;  they  believe  only 
what  is  good  of  them,  and  reject  the  evil  that  is  said  of  them. 
This  is  exemplified  in  politics  and  in  religion,  for  good  men 
will  stand  by  their  parties  and  their  leaders,  although  strong 
evidence  tends  to  prove  them  corrupt.  The  advocate  ought  not 
to  weaken  the  confidence  he  will  naturally  have  in  the  justice 
of  his  client's  cause  by  any  corrupt  act  of  his  own,  for  to  the 
extent  that  his  confidence  is  weakened,  to  that  extent  is  his  real 
power  diminished. 

§  11.  Cliitty's  advice. — Mr.  Chitty,  in  speaking  of  the  pre- 
liminary examination  of  witnesses,  gives  this  excellent  advice : 
"Every  honorable  practitioner  at  all  events  will  take  care  that 
no  part  of  his  client's  intercourse  with  the  witnesses  can  have 
the  least  influence  upon  him  to  give  his  testimony  otherwise 
than  strictly  according  to  the  truth,  and  without  evincing  the 
slightest  partiality  to  either  party.  Indeed,  in  prudence  and 
in  policy  this  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  client's  in- 
terests, because  the  least  improper  interference  with  a  witness 
might  so  disgust  a  jury  as  to  induce  them  to  find  a  verdict 
against  a  client,  although  law  and  justice  might,  on  the  whole, 
be  in  his  favor.  "^  If  it  appears  to  the  jury  that  one  witness 
has  been  corruptly  tampered  with,  a  suspicion  is  engendered 
against  both  client  and  counsel  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  re- 
move, and,  indeed,  one  that  it  is  often  impossible  to  displace. 
The  jurors  reason  that,  if  one  witness  has  been  corruptly  in- 
fluenced, others  have  also  been  probably  tampered  with,  and  a 
feeling  akin  to  anger  is  aroused  which  works  infinite  mischief, 
for  jurors,  like  other  men,  quickly  become  indignant  if  it  ap- 
pears to  them  that  there  has  been  an  effort  to  impose  upon 
them. 

§  12.  Harm  caused  by  a  bad  witness. — A  bad  witness  does 
more  harm  to  a  cause  than  many  good  ones  can  repair.  A 
good  case  may  be  irretrievably  ruined  by  one  bad  witness,  for 

'  3  Chitty  General  Practice,  825. 


§  13  LKAIIN'ING    AND    I'KKPAKING    TIIK    FACTS.  11 

men  are  apt  to  conclude,  and  not  without  reason,  tliat  a  man 
who  has  done  one  bad  act  will  likely  do  many  more.  It  is, 
therefore,  of  great  importance  to  prevent  any  suspicion  that 
the  witnesses  have  been  in  any  way  corruptly  influenced,  as 
well  as  to  prevent  any  suspicion  tluit  they  have  had  stories 
made  up  for  them,  or  that  one  witness  has  been  prompted  by 
another.  In  order  to  prevent  such  a  suspicion  counsel  and 
client  must  be  scrupulously  careful  and  circumspect  in  their 
intercourse  with  the  witnesses. 

§  13.  Cautioning:  witnesses. — It  is  as  imprudent  as  it  is  dis- 
honorable to  "coach"  or  "tutor"  a  witness,  but  there  are 
matters  about  which  he  may  honestly  and  with  entire  propriety 
be  cautioned.  It  is  not  improper  to  caution  a  quick-tempered 
witness  to  be  careful  to  keep  his  temper  under  control,  nor  is 
it  improper  to  direct  him  to  be  respectful  to  opposing  counsel, 
and  to  avoid  flippant  or  "smart "  remarks.  It  is  good  practice 
to  direct  a  witness  to  treat  the  judge  with  deference,  to  be  de- 
corous in  his  behavior,  and  to  avoid  boisterous  conduct  or  un- 
seemly levity.  So,  too,  it  is  proper  to  admonish  him  that  he 
has  a  right  to  fairly  understand  all  questions  that  are  addressed 
to  him,  and  that,  as  it  is  his  privilege  to  be  allowed  to  fully  com- 
prehend the  question,  he  may  ask  that  it  be  repeated  or  made 
plain;  and  so,  too,  it  is  proper  to  inform  him  that  in  giving  a 
conversation  he  should,  as  nearly  as  he  can  truthfully  do  so, 
give  the  exact  words  used.  It  is  also  proper  to  direct  him  that 
he  should  give  responsive  answers  to  the  questions  propounded 
to  him,  and  not  wander  to  other  matters.  It  is  suggested  by 
Mr.  Chitty — and  few  men  were  better  qualified  to  give  advice 
than  ]ie — that,  "It  may  be  of  considerable  importance  that 
witnesses,  especially  females,  unaccustomed  to  courts  of  justice, 
should  for  a  day  or  two,  or  at  least  a  few  hours,  before  the  ex- 
pected trial  attend  court,  so  that  by  the  observance  of  the  de- 
meanor of  others  they  may  be  better  prepared  to  overcome  the 
sensation  of  alarm  which  would  otherwise  frequently  incapac- 
itate them  from  giving  their  evidence  in  a  i)roper  manner."^ 

'  3  Chitty  Cieneral  Practice,  825. 


12  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  14 

§  14.   Duty  of  advocate  in  consultation  with  witness. — It  is 

the  duty  of  the  advocate  in  the  consultation  with  the  witnesses 
to  draw  from  them  all  the  facts  of  which  they  have  knowledge. 
He  must  keep  in  mind  that  it  is  the  facts,  and  not  the  infer- 
ences of  the  witnesses,  that  he  seeks,  and  he  must  steadily, 
and  sometimes  sternly,  keep  them  to  the  facts.  They  must  be 
made  to  understand  that  they  are  to  state  the  facts,  and  not 
their  theories  or  conclusions.  When  a  fact  is  stated,  and  the  ad- 
vocate has  no  reason  to  suspect  that  the  statement  is  untrue,  then 
he  should  lead  the  witness  by  fair  and  honest  questions  to  re- 
call all  the  little  circumstances  that  fasten  it  in  his  memory, 
and  give  it  probability.  A  naked  fact,  however  positively 
stated,  often  seems  improbable;  but  when  surrounding  circum- 
stances are  detailed  its  probability  is  firmly  established.  So, 
too,  it  often  appears  highly  improbable  that  a  witness  should 
accurately  remember  a  fact,  yet  when  all  the  circumstances  are 
developed  the  reason  for  its  having  fastened  itself  in  his  mem- 
ory will  satisfactorily  appear.  Another  advantage  that  this 
method  secures  is  that  it  strengthens  the  memory  of  the  wit- 
ness, for,  upon  the  familiar  doctrine  of  association,  one  thought 
recalls  another  with  which  it  was  once  associated,  and  so  the 
mention  of  one  fact  often  recalls  another  which  had  almost  en- 
tirely faded  from  memory.  It  is  prudent,  as  well  as  honest, 
to  admonish  the  witnesses  in  the  private  interview  with  them 
that  you  expect  of  them  a  true  statement  of  the  facts  of  which 
they  have  knowledge.  This  is  prudent  because  it  often  hap- 
pens that  the  witness  will  be  asked  on  cross-examination  to 
whom  he  made  the  statement  given  by  him  on  the  witness 
stand.  To  avoid  unjust  inferences  arising  from  the  probable 
answer  that  it  was  made  to  the  advocate,  it  is  well  enough  to 
be  able  to  show  that  he  was  cautioned  to  tell  the  truth  and  give 
only  the  actual  facts  within  liis  knowledge,  and  it  is  honest 
because  it  apprises  the  witness  that  you  want  to  hear  only  the 
truth . 

§  15.   Inspection  of  written  instruments.— In  cases  where 
written  instruments  form  important  matters  of  evidence,  the 


§  15  LEARNING    AND    I'KKPAHING    THK    FACTS.  13 

safe  course  is  to  always  (lemaiid  and  secure  an  inspection  of 
them  before  trial.  A  close  examination  of  written  documents 
may  often  lead  to  important  results  and  sui)ply  material  assist- 
ance to  the  advocate,  both  by  advising  him  of  danger  to  be  en- 
countered and  by  enabling  him  to  detect  tlie  fabrication  of 
evidence  by  the  mantifacture  of  false  documents,  or  the  altera- 
tion of  genuine  ones.  There  are  cases  in  the  books  where  the 
manufacturer's  imprint  upon  the  paper  sliowed  that  the  docu- 
ment purported  to  bear  a  date  long  anterior  to  that  at  which 
the  paper  upon  which  it  was  written  was  manufactured.' 
Wlien  there  is  serious  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity  of  a  docu- 
ment it  is  prudent  to  investigate  the  character  of  the  paper  on 
which  it  is  written,  and,  if  possible,  ascertain  when  and  where 
it  was  made.  One  case  has  come  under  our  observation  where 
it  appeared  that  words  of  an  important  character  were  printed 
by  types  not  manufactured  until  some  years  after  the  date  af- 
fixed to  the  instrument.  In  another  case  given  in  the  books 
an  instrument  was  produced  purporting  to  have  been  executed 
in  a  county  which  Avas  not  in  existence  until  long  after  the 
date  which  the  instrument  bore.^ 

^  A  member  of  the  Kansas  bar  fur-  and  all  the  other  evidence  would  cer- 

nishes  us  with  the  following  instance :  tainly  not  have    availed    to   convict 

"A  number  of  lawbooks  had  recently  him." 

been  stolen  from  several  libraries,  and        ^  The  importance  of  such  matters  is 

the  thief  had  finally  been  secured.  He  further  illustrated  by  the    following 

claimed  to  have  purchased  the  books,  instance,  for  which  we  are  indebted 

and  all  had  his  name  in  them,  with  to  an  eminent  member  of  the  Indian- 

the  date  of  purchase.    There  were  no  apolisbar: 

distinctive  features  by  which  the  own-  "Some  years  ago  a  brother  la%^yer 
ers  could  identify  the  books.  Finally,  asked  me  to  help  him  trj'  a  cause,  and 
looking  in  the  volume  of  Cooley's  said  before  the  case  came  on  for  trial 
Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  we  he  would  have  the  facts  all  in  hand, 
found  that  the  thief  had  written  the  Some  weeks  afterwards,  I  was  sum- 
date  'May,  1884,'  as  the  date  of  pur-  moned  to  the  forum  by  a  telegram 
chase.  The  title  page  bore  publication  that  the  case  would  be  tried  the  next 
date  of  1880.  But  within  the  body  of  day.  It  was  a  case  of  a  contest  for  a 
the  book  is  a  note  which  contains  ref-  county  office,  and  the  question  was 
erence  to  a  national  law  passed  in  1886,  which  candidate  had  received  the 
and  the  edition  was  one  of  the  year  most  votes  at  the  election.  It  appeared 
1887.  Upon  the  detection  of  this  fact  upon  the  face  of  the  returns  that  our 
the  fellow  wilted,  and  plead  guilty,  client  had  a  majority  of  twelve;  but 
He  was  a  man  of  excellent  reputation,  on  a  '  recount '  of  the  votes,  under  the 


14 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§16 


§  16.   Copies  should  not  be  depended  upon. — Where  instru- 


law,  it  appeared  that  our  adversary 
had  a  majority  of  twenty-seven.  It 
took  but  a  short  while  to  ascertain  that 
the  variation  was  confined  to  two  pre- 
cincts. Under  the  law  at  that  time  all 
the  ballots  were  required  to  be  re- 
turned to  the  county  clerk,  sealed  in 
paper  bags  furnished  by  the  State  for 
that  purpose.  I  talked  with  the  elec- 
tion officers  in  each  of  these  precincts, 
and  they  all  declared,  without  regard 
to  party  aflSliations,  that  they  had 
done  their  work  carefully ;  that  they 
knew  the  race  was  close,  and  the  peo- 
ple deeply  interested,  and  they  had 
taken  every  precaution  to  make  no 
mistakes,  and  would  swear  that  they 
returned  the  votes  as  cast.  I  then 
sent  for  some  of  the  members  of  the 
recounting  board,  and  they,  with  equal 
frankness  and  confidence,  affirmed 
that  they  had  counted  the  ballots  with 
precise  care,  and  they  would  be  com- 
pelled to  swear,  without  regard  to 
party  affiliations,  that  their  count  was 
correct.  The  burden  of  proof  was 
upon  our  client.  I  went  over  to  the 
court-house  and  asked  the  commis- 
sioner's court  for  permission  to  ex- 
amine the  bags.  They  ordered  the 
officer  to  bring  them  into  open  court 
and  display  them  on  the  table.  On 
examination,  there  were  no  holes  or 
apparent  opportunity  for  having  tam- 
pered with  the  tickets  while  they  were 
in  the  bags.  The  bags  were  in  the 
form  of  large  envelopes,  and  sealed 
over  the  laps  on  the  backs.  Several 
days  had  elapsed  between  the  filing  of 
the  bags  in  the  clerk's  office  and  the 
recount. 

"  While  at  the  court-house  I  noticed 
.that  the  transom  over  the  clerk's  of- 
fice was  open,  and  large  enough  for  a 
man  to  climb  over.  But  we  had  no 
evidence  that  any  person,  in  any  man- 


ner, had  tampered  with  the  tickets. 
Indeed,  it  appeared  impossible,  be- 
cause the  recounting  board  had  care- 
fully opened  the  bags  at  the  end,  so  as 
not  to  distufb  the  wax  thereon  placed 
by  the  election  officers,  and  resealed 
the  bags  upon  the  close  of  the  re- 
count. 

"This  had  occupied  the  afternoon, 
and  we  had  a  consultation  in  the  even- 
ing. We  called  in  the  election  officers 
in  the  two  precincts  one  by  one,  and 
examined  them  again,  without  finding 
any  fact  that  would  break  the  force  of 
the  opposition.  Finally,  I  said :  'Have 
you  any  friend  in  this  town  who  is  in 
the  habit  of  using  sealing  wax ;  if  so, 
send  for  him.'  He  came,  and,  taking 
an  envelope  from  the  table,  I  asked 
him  whether  he  could  seal  it  with  wax, 
open  it,  and  reseal  it  again,  so  as  to 
cover  detection.  He  said  he  could, 
and  that  often  after  having  sealed  a 
package,  wishing  to  recount  the  money, 
or  for  some  other  purpose,  he  had  done 
it.  I  at  once  procured  a  stick  of  seal- 
ing wax,  and  taking  an  envelope  filled 
it  somewhat  full,  and  asked  him  to  do 
it.  He  was  careful  not  to  wet  the 
mucilage,  and  drew  the  melted  wax 
over  the  line  of  the  lap.  After  it  had 
cooled,  he  took  out  his  pen-knife  and 
gently  picked  a  line  along  the  center 
of  the  seal.  Then,  taking  his  fingers, 
he  broke  it  readily  in  the  line  of  the 
mark  thus  made.  I  saw  how  it  could 
be  done. 

"  '  Now,'  I  said,  '  how  do  you  reseal 

it?' 

"  Taking  the  heated  wax,  he  drew  it 
over  the  break,  saying :  '  If  I  want  to 
perfectly  conceal  my  work,  I  cover 
entirely  the  old  wax,  but  otherwise  I 
simply  lay  the  warm  wax  over  the 
l)reak,    and  then   it  presents  the  ap- 


§16 


LKAKNIXG    AND    rKiCJ'A  Kl  N(i    TilK    FACTS. 


15 


merits  are  important  it  is  unsafe  to  depend  u{)on  copies,  since 


pearance,    as  you  see,   of  one   ridge 
lying  upon  another.' 

"  I  had  observed  this  peculiarity  on 
the  election  bags  in  the  two  townships, 
but  it  had  not  impressed  me  suf- 
ficiently at  the  time  to  arouse  even  a 
suspicion ;  because,  perhaps,  I  was 
unfamiliar  with  the  use  of  wax. 

"In  the  morning  the  trial  began. 
The  opposition  were  bold.  I  first  in- 
troduced the  election  returns,  and 
then,  to  the  consternation  of  my  ad- 
versaries, put  in  evidence  the  returns 
of  the  recounting  board.  Calling  the 
expert,  whom  I  had  subpoenaed  in  the 
meantime,  I  proved  his  business,  his 
long  experience  in  the  use  of  sealing- 
wax,  and  asked  him  to  go  to  his  office, 
which  was  only  a  short  w'ay  off,  and 
get  a  stick  of  wax  and  his  lamp.  As 
he  arose,  I  asked  the  clerk  to  give  me 
a  large  envelope.  He  handed  me  one 
used  for  court  files.  Gathering  up  a 
newspaper,  I  put  it  in  and  then  my 
adversary  wanted  to  know  what  this 
had  to  do  with  the  case.  I  declined 
to  state  the  purpose,  but  assured  the 
court  that  I  would  make  it  competent. 

"  The  house  was  crowded  and  polit- 
ical excitement  ran  high. 

"Upon  the  expert's  return,  I  asked 
him  to  seal  the  envelope  which  I 
handed  him.  He  did  by  drawing  the 
wax  down  the  line  of  the  lap.  I  then 
called  for  the  bags  for  the  two  pre- 
cincts wherein  the  variation  was,  and 
invited  the  attention  of  the  court  to 
the  returns  of  both  boards  to  show 
that  the  question  was  narrowed  to 
these  two  precincts.  By  this  time  the 
wax  was  cold.  Turning  to  the  expert, 
who  was  still  upon  the  witness  stand, 
I  handed  him  the  envelope  just  sealed 
and  asked  him  if  he  could  open  it  and 
reseal  it  so  that  it  would  not  be  dis- 
covered.     He  answered,    "yes."      I 


Ihen  told  him  to  open  it.  He  went 
tlirough  the  process  above  described. 
1  then  told  him  to  reseal  it  and  he  did 
it  in  the  same  manner  as  he  hail  done 
the  night  before,  stating  at  the  same 
time  that  if  he  desired  to  entirely  con- 
ceal his  work  he  would  lay  the  wax 
entirely  over  the  old  ridge,  but  ordi- 
narilyhe  drew  the  wax  over  the  break, 
and  I  asked  him  to  do  the  same  in  this 
case. 

"  Then  laying  this  envelope  along 
side  of  the  two  bags  in  contest  they  be- 
came silent  w^itnesses  in  themselves. 

"  Looking  at  the  election  officers  in 
these  two  precincts,  my  eye  fell  upon 
a  sturdy,  white-haired,  broad-shoul- 
dered man  who  had  told  me  the  night 
before  that  he  had  sealed  his  Vjag. 
His  eyes  were  gleaming  with  intelli- 
gence. It  would  not  do  to  hold  a  con- 
ference in  the  presence  of  the  court  or 
the  by-standers.  Besides,  I  had  no 
doubt  as  to  his  testimony.  Putting 
him  in  the  witness  chair  he  told  how 
carefully  he  and  his  associates  had 
counted  the  tickets;  that  when  the 
work  was  done  it  was  late  at  night, 
and  that  putting  the  tickets  in  the 
bag  the  question  ai'ose  as  to  whose 
duty  it  was  to  seal  the  bag ;  that  it  was 
agreed  that  as  he  was  the  chief  officer 
it  fell  to  him ;  that  being  a  farmer  he 
was  unfamiliar  with  the  use  of  sealing- 
wax,  and  the  stick  furnished  by  the 
State  being  small,  he  had  not  used 
one-half  as  much  wax  as  now  appeared 
upon  the  bag. 

"  His  associate  election  officers  con- 
firmed him.  Still  the  court  and  the 
audience  sat  breathless  and  uncon- 
\nnced. 

"  Going  to  the  next  precinct,  I  called 
for  the  officer  who  had  sealed  the  bag. 
On  handing  the  bag  to  him  he  testified 
thnt  he  had  sealed  it,  paused,  t<}ok  it 


IQ  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  17 

it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  copyist  has  fallen  into  an 
unintentional  error,  or  has  intentionally  interpolated  or  omitted 
important  clauses.^ 

§  17.   Client's  statement  of  contents  not  to  be  trusted.— Few 

things  are  more  hazardous  than  to  rely  upon  a  client's  repre- 
sentation of  the  contents  of  a  written  instrument,  for,  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases,  he  gives,  not  the  language  of  the  in- 
strument, but  his  own  construction  of  it.  The  construction  of 
written  instruments,  whether  wills,  deeds,  or  agreements,  is  a 
work  of  great  difficulty,  often  perplexing  the  best  lawyers  and 
most  experienced  judges,  and  no  advocate  does  his  duty  unless 
he  himself  carefully  studies  and  cautiously  weighs  all  the  im- 
portant words  contained  in  a  written  instrument. ^  In  order  to 
do  this  successfully  he  must  get  into  his  mind  clearly,  fully, 
and  accurately  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  parties  at 
the  time  of  its  execution. 

§  18.    Circumstances  aid  work  of  construction.— A  dim  and 

indistinct  view  will  not  enable  the  advocate  to  give  a  writing 
a  construction  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  unless  there  exists 

up,  examined  it  with  care,  took  out  "  Instantly  there  was  a  shout  of  re- 

liis  pocket-knife  and  began  picking  at  lief.     When  quiet  was  restored,  I  an- 

the  wax,  no  one  knew  for  what  pur-  nounced  that  I  rested  the  case. 

pose.  "  The  finding  was  in  our  favor.     My 

"Question.  'Is  this  wax  and  bag  client  was  declared  elected.  I  re- 
in the  condition  in  which  it  was  the  turned  on  the  next  train,  feeling  that 
night  you  sealed  it,  and  as  you  brought  not  only  was  necessity  the  mother  of 
it  and  delivered  it  into  the  custody  of  invention,  but  was  also  the  spur  of 
the  county  clerk?  '  justice." 

"Answer.     'No;  and  I  will  tell  you  *  Wilson  v.  Tucker,  3  Starkie  N.  P. 

why.     I  keep  the  railroad  station  in  154. 

my  town.     I  am  in  the  habit  of  using  ^  This  is  also  necessary  in  order  to 

sealing-wax  every  day,  and  I  have  no  construct  a  proper  theory  of  the  case, 

recollection   as  to   how  I   sealed  the  for  a  party  will  be  held  on  appeal  to 

bag,  but  I  know  I  heated  the  wax  over  the  theory,  and  the  construction  adopt- 

an  oil  lamp  because  the  election  was  ed  and  contended  for  by  him  in  the 

held  in  the  depot,  and   the    railroad  trial  court.     Barrett  v.  Fisch,  76  Iowa, 

company  furnished  only  that  kind  of  553,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  Rep.  310;  Metzler 

light,  and  any  one  can  see  tallow  in  v.  James,  12  Colo.  322,  S.  C.  19  Pac. 

this  wax'— holding  it  up  to  the  in-  Rep.  885;  Elliott's  App.Proc,  §§  490- 

epection  of  the  judges.  492. 


§  19  LEARNING    AND    I'KKI'AlilNCi    THK    FACTS.  17 

in  his  own  mind  a  strong,  clear,  and  decided  conception  he 
will  miserably  fail  in  the  effort  to  convey  to  a  court  or  jury  a 
just  idea  of  its  force  and  meaning.  Instruments  would  almost 
always  be  obscure  if  it  were  not  for  the  light  which  attendant 
circumstances  cast  upon  them — in  many  cases,  indeed,  would 
be  utterly  unintelligible  but  for  that  light.  It  often  requires 
close  investigation  to  discover  the  circumstances  which  supply 
the  light,  and  when  they  are  discovered  the  full  benefit  from 
them  can  be  obtained  only  by  a  skillful  arrangement  that  will 
pour  their  light  upon  the  dark  places.^ 

§  19.  Circumstances  may  create  probability. — The  circum- 
stances of  a  case  require  the  most  careful  scrutiny  and  the  most 
rigid  analysis,  for  circumstances  often  create  probability,  and 
probability  is  a  prime  factor  in  all  forensic  contests.  Positive 
testimony  if  inherently  improbable  will  often  be  of  little  value, 
and  circumstances  will  frequently  control  cases  as  against  pos- 
itive testimony.  In  truth,  it  is  the  circumstances  that  give 
color  and  character  to  all  complicated  cases.  Circumstances 
constitute  the  atmosphere  of  complex  causes.^  The  task  of  an 
advocate  can  not,  therefore,  be  considered  at  an  end  when  he 
has  ascertained  what  direct  evidence  can  be  adduced.  There 
remains,  in  all  complex  cases,  at  least,  the  work  of    ascertain- 

^  Words  are  often  ambiguous,  and  "tools  of  trade,"  as  used  in  statutes 
careful  scrutiny  is  required  in  order  giving  the  right  of  exemption.  See  7 
to  determine  in  what  sense  they  are  Am.  and  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law,  135- 
employed.  Even  in  legislative  enact-  137  and  notes;  Kilburn  r.  Demming, 
ments,  words  are  often  so  carelessly  21  Am.  Dec.  543,  and  note, 
employed  as  to  leave  the  meaning  in  '^  Masters  of  the  art  of  advocacy  have 
doubt.  Thus,  the  word  "female"  is  often  so  used  circumstances  as  to  over- 
often  used  when  girl  or  woman  is  throw  positive  and  truthful  testimony, 
meant,  and  in  the  British  Reform  Act  Against  false  testimony  they  are  al- 
of  1867,  the  word"  man  "  was  so  used  as  ways  strong  instruments  of  attack; 
to  render  it  impossible  to  tell  whether  but  they  have  often  been  made  u:-e  of 
it  was  meant  to  include  or  exclude  to  overpower  or  hide  the  truth  by 
women.  So,  the  word  "team,"  in  a  shrewd  advocates,  who  employ  them 
lease  gave  one  of  the  English  courts  as  painters  employ  colors  to  hide  de- 
much  difficulty  in  attempting  to  de-  fects  or  deformities,  so  that,  as  was 
termine  its  true  meaning,  and  the  said  of  old,  "  painted  error  appears  in 
same  difficulty  has  been  encountered  many  things  more  probable  than 
in   construing   the    term   "tools"  or  truth." 


18  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  20 

ing  whether  the  direct  evidence  is,  or  is  not,  probable,  even 
though  it  may  appear  that  direct  testimony  can  be  adduced 
upon  every  material  point.  ' '  Probability, ' '  says  Dr.  Campbell, 
"is  a  light  darted  on  an  object  from  the  proofs,  which,  for  this 
reason,  are  pertinently  enough  styled  evidence."  It  is  this 
light  which  must  be  obtained  from  the  circumstances  and  cast 
upon  the  testimon}?^  of  the  witnesses.  There  is  much  of  truth 
in  what  Aristotle  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  advocate  who  can 
call  no  witnesses:  "Let  him  also  say  that  it  is  impossible  to 
lead  probability  astray  on  the  score  of  money,  and  that  proba- 
bility is  never  detected  bearing  false  testimony,"^  for  it  is  true 
that  probability  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  things  for  money 
to  secure  or  motive  to  create.  In  many  cases  circumstantial 
evidence  will  be  the  only  kind  that  can  be  obtained,  but  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  is  often  more  satisfactory  than  direct 
evidence  can  be.  Whether  the  evidence  be  direct  or  circum- 
stantial, it  is  necessary  to  prove  such  circumstances  as  make 
the  evidence  probable,  for  circumstances  create  probability  and 
probability  secures  verdicts.  In  searching  for  the  circum- 
stances of  a  transaction  the  minutest  and  closest  attention  to 
details  is  requisite,  for  it  is  little  things,  carefully  gathered  to- 
gether and  skillfully  grouped,  that  create  probability.^ 

§  20.  Influence  of  probabilities. — There  are  few  things  in 
the  abstract  sciences,^  or,  for  the  matter  of  that,  in  any  of  the 
affairs  of  life,  that  can  be  proved  with  absolute  certainty ;  the 
highest  certainty  that  can  be  attained  falls  far  short  of  mathe- 
matical demonstration.  The  contests  of  the  forum  are  battles 
of  the  probabilities.  In  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  whether 
in  matters  of  commerce  or  mechanics,  whether  in  matters  of 

'  Aristotle  Rhet.,  Chap.  xv.  king  of  men  of  talent,  but  he  always 

*  The  successful  advocate  is  not  the  dealt  too  much  in  generalities  for  a 

one  who  deals  in  generalities,  but  the  lawyer.     He  is  deficient  in  power  in 

one  who  goes  into  the  specific  matters  applying  his  principles  to  the  points 

of  law  or  fact  of  the  particular  case,  in  debate." 

Sir  James   Mackintosh   is  a  striking  ^  Mr.  Sedgwick  philosophically  dis- 

example  of  the  failure  of  a  very  great  cusses  this  subject.     Fallacies,  35,  225, 

man  in  advocacy.     Coleridge  said  of  221. 

him,  "  Sir  James  Mackintosh  is  the 


§  21  LEARNING    AND    PREPARINO    TH  K    FACTS.  19 

law  or  medicine,  men  can  do  no  more  tlian  reach  probable 
truth.  Dr.  McCosh  says  :  "  It  is  in  vain  to  expect  demonstra- 
tion in  every  line  of  inquiry.  Demonstration  is  confined  to  a 
limited  class  of  objects,  and  these  characterized  by  their  simple 
and  abstract  nature.  In  most  of  the  sciences  it  is  not  avail- 
able; it  can  not  be  had  in  chemistry,  in  natural  history,  in 
psychology,  in  political  economy.  In  the  practical  affairs  of 
life  no  man  looks  for  it.  If  a  man's  house  is  on  fire  he  will 
proceed  to  pour  water  upon  it,  though  it  can  not  be  demon- 
strated, in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term,  that  water  will 
quench  the  flame.'"  The  testimony  upon  which  the  advocate 
relies  must  appear  to  be  not  merely  possibly  true,  but  probably 
true,  for  there  is  a  wide  difference  betwen  probable  and  possi- 
ble truth. ^  The  probability  which  carries  conviction  in  courts 
of  justice  is  not  the  probability  of  poetry  and  romance,  which 
has  been  not  inaptly  denominated  "the  possible  probable,"  but 
that  probability  which  approaches  as  near  as  possible  the  real, 
absolute  truth. ^  That  may  be  deemed  probable  which  is  con- 
sistent with  human  knowledge  and  experience,  and  that  may 
be  regarded  as  improbable  which  is  against  the  experience  and 
knowledge  of  mankind.  This,  however,  is  a  general  rule  to 
which  there  are  many  and  notable  exceptions,  but  it  is  one  upon 
which  it  is  safe  to  proceed  in  the  very  great  majority  of  cases. 
It  is  this  sort  of  probability  to  which  Mr.  Harris  refers  when 
he  says:  "Probabilities,  therefore,  are  the  mainstays  of  evi- 
dence; are,  in  fact,  the  evidence."* 

§  21.  Inferences. — Archbishop  Whately  says:  "To  infer, 
then,  is  the  business  of  the  philosopher;  to  prove,  of  the  ad- 
vocate. The  former  from  the  great  mass  of  known  and  ad- 
mitted truths  wishes  to  elicit  any  valuable  additional  truth, 
whatever  that  has  been  hitherto  unperceived,  and,  perhaps, 
without  knowing  with  certainty  what  will  be  the  terms  of  his 

*  Logic,  160.  n.     But  proof  is  said  to  be  a  stronger 

'  Wills  on  Circumstantial  Evidence,  term.     Brown  i\  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6-10;  Ram  on  Facts,  116.  19  S.  Car.  3!). 

'Aristotle  Rhet.   (Bohn's  ed.),  425,  illustrations  in  Advocacy,  95. 


20  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  22 

conclusion.  The  advocate,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  proposi- 
tion put  before  him,  which  he  is  to  maintain  as  well  as  he  can. 
His  business,  therefore,  is  to  find  middle  terms  (which  is  the 
invent io  of  Cicero),  the  philosopher's,  to  combine  and  select 
known  facts  or  principles  suitably  for  gaining  from  them  con- 
clusions which,  though  implied  in  the  premises,  were  before 
unperceived.  In  other  words,  for  making  logical  discover- 
ies."^ This  is  a  narrower  view  of  the  duties  of  an  advocate 
than  our  American  practice  warrants,  if  not,  indeed,  narrower 
tlian  that  warranted  by  the  English  practice.  An  advocate  must 
both  infer  and  prove ;  from  established  facts  he  must  infer 
probable  conclusions,  and  these  he  must  prove  to  the  jury.  The 
work  of  inferring  must  precede  that  of  proving.  Direct  evi- 
dence furnishes  the  advocate  the  materials  out  of  which  to  con- 
struct his  inferences ;  from  these  materials  he  must  infer  con- 
clusions, and  these  he  must  prove  in  argument.  The  conclusions 
of  fact  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  an  issue  must  first  be  in- 
ferred and  firmly  fixed  in  the  mind  of  the  advocate  before  he 
can  prove  them  to  the  triers  of  his  case.  So  that  the  work  of 
inferring  is  quite  as  important  to  the  advocate  as  to  the  philoso- 
pher. There  are  many  cases  where  this  work  is  one  of  great 
difficulty  and  importance,  and  where  success  depends  upon  the 
care  and  skill  with  which  it  is  done.  There  are,  indeed,  com- 
paratively few  contested  cases  where  the  work  of  inference  is 
not  of  prime  importance,  for,  in  almost  all  cases,  the  direct  ev- 
idence must  be  supplemented  by  inferences  resulting  from  it. 
The  necessity  for  securing  a  clear  and  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  facts  from  which  the  inferences  are  to  be  drawn,  as  well  as 
of  conducting  the  process,  is  an  imperious  one,  for  if  the  facts 
which  constitute  the  premises  are  not  correctly  stated,  the  in- 
ferences will  be  invalid. 

§  22.  Groundwork  of  inferences. — While  the  process  of  in- 
ference is  a  legitimate  one,  and  while  verdicts  may  be,  and  often 
are,  based  upon  inferences,^  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  there 

'Logic,  Book  IV,  Chap,  iii,  §  1.  Ind.  63,  p.  72;  Hedrick  v.  D.  M.  Os- 

*  1  Greenleaf  s  f>idence,  §  13 ;    Un-    borne  Co.,  99  Ind.  143 ;  Ram  on  Facts, 
ion  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  i'.  Buchanan,  100    283-300. 


§  23  LEARNING    AND    PREPARING    THE    FACTS.  21 

must  be  evidence  of  tlie  circumstances  from  wliicli  the  infer- 
ences are  drawn.  There  can  be  no  valid  inference  where  there 
is  no  evidence  establishing  the  facts  upon  which  the  reasoning 
proceeds.'  This  doctrine  is  admirably  presented  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  a  recent  case,^  where  it  was  said, 
in  speaking  of  inferences  from  unproved  facts:  "They  are  in- 
ferences from  inferences,  presumptions  resting  on  the  basis  of 
another  presumption.  Such  a  mode  of  arriving  at  a  conclu- 
sion of  fact  is  generally,  if  not  universally,  inadmissible.  No 
inference  of  fact  or  of  law  is  reliable  drawn  from  premises 
which  are  uncertain.  Whatever  circumstantial  evidence  is  re- 
lied upon  to  prove  a  fact,  the  circumstances  must  be  proved, 
and  not  themselves  presumed.  Starkie  on  Evidence,  p.  80,  lays 
down  the  rule  thus :  '  In  the  first  place,  as  the  very  foundation 
of  indirect  evidence  is  the  establishment  of  one  or  more  facts 
from  which  the  inference  is  sought  to  be  made,  the  law  requires 
that  the  latter  should  be  established  by  direct  evidence,  as  if 
they  were  the  very  facts  in  issue.'"  It  is,  therefore,  essential 
that  the  advocate  should  search  for  and  secure  evidence  of  the 
circumstances  which  he  expects  to  make  the  basis  of  his  infer- 
ences. There  must  be  a  visible  connection  between  the  circum- 
stances proved  and  the  inferences  sought  to  be  drawn  from 
them.  "The  law  requires  an  open  and  visible  connection  be- 
tween the  princijDal  and  evidentiary  facts  and  the  deductions 
from  them,  and  does  not  permit  a  decision  to  be  made  on  re- 
mote inferences."^ 

§  23.  Difference  between  facts  and  evidence. — There  is  an 
essential  difference  between  facts  and  evidence,^  and  it  is  neces- 
sary to  carefully  discriminate    between  the  evidence  and  the 

>  Chambers  v.  Hunt,  3  Ilarr.  (N.  J.)  Parks  v.  Satterthwaite  (Ind.),  32  N. 

354;  Gates  V.  Hughes,  44  Wis.  336.  E.  Rep.  82.    This  distinction  becomes 

'United  States  v.  Ross,  92  U.  S.  281.  of  the  utmost  importance  in  preparing 

'United  States  r.  Ross,  .s?(/)rrt;  Best  special  findings  and  special  verdicts, 

on  Presumptive  Evid.  95;  Douglass  v.  as,  in  such  cases,  the  facts  only  will  be 

Mitchell,  35  Pa.  St.  440;  Richmond  t\  considered,  and  no  attention  will  be 

Nicken,  25  Vt.  326.  paid  to  mere  items  of  evidence.  Kirk- 

*Clay  Co.  V.  Simonsen,  1  Dak.  403;  patrick  r.  Reeves,  121  Ind.  280. 


22  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  24 

facts  in  preparing  for  trial,  in  drafting  the  pleadings,  and  in 
arguing  the  cause.  An  advocate  who  should  do  nothing  more 
than  rehearse  the  evidence  delivered  on  the  trial  would  make 
poor  progress  toward  securing  a  verdict,  for,  if  he  would  carry 
the  jury,  he  must  dig  out  from  the  mass  of  evidence  the  con- 
trolling facts,  skillfully  array  them,  and  clearly  and  strongly 
place  them  before  the  jury.  Evidence  consists  of  the  marks  of 
facts,  and  whether  a  fact  is  or  is  not  established  by  evidence 
depends  upon  the  plainness  and  sufficiency  of  the  marks  which 
the  evidence  impresses  upon  it. 

§  24.  Marks  of  things. — One  who  looks  below  the  surface  of 
things  will  find  that  the  skillful  advocate,  in  ascertaining  the 
facts  from  the  evidence,  proceeds  upon  the  logical  doctrine  that 
what  has  the  marks  of  a  thing  is  the  thing  itself.  If  the  log- 
ical rule  were  more  often  kept  in  mind  and  followed  the  con- 
clusions of  fact  drawn  from  the  evidemce  would  more  often  be 
accurate.  A  fact  can  only  be  recognized  through  signs  or 
marks,  and  the  place  to  look  for  those  marks  or  signs  is  in  the 
evidence.  In  strictness,  the  fact  itself  is  never  found,  but  only 
the  marks  and  signs,  and  it  is  for  these  that  search  must  be 
made. 

§25.  "Fact"  not  synonymous  with  "truth." — The  word 
"  fact,"  as  used  in  legal  proceedings,  is  not  synonymous  with 
"  truth,"  for  it  means  no  more  than  an  event,  occurrence,  cir- 
cumstance, or  mental  state. ^  An  English  author  says,  in  sub- 
stance, that  "  fact  is  anything  that  is  the  subject  of  testimony;  "^ 
but  this  is  too  vague  a  definition  to  be  of  practical  value,  and, 
besides,  it  is  too  broad,  for  it  includes  matters  of  opinion.  Mr. 
Burrill  says  that,  ''  However  paradoxical  it  may  appear,  there 
may  be  such  things  as  false  facts,"  and  he  proves  the  truth  of 

» Stephen    Introduction    to    Indian  Logic,  213;    Drake  v.  Cockroft,  4  E. 

Evid.,Chap.ii;  Stephen's  Digest  Law  D.  Smith    (N.  Y.),  34;    Lawrence  v. 

of  Evidence,  Art.  I;  G.  C.  Lewis,  In-  Wright,  2  Duer  (N.  Y.),  673. 

fluence  of  Authority  in   Matters    of  *  jjam  on  Facts  (3  Am.ed.),  17,  and 

Opinion,  Chap,  i ;  Burrill's  Cir.  Evid.,  notes. 
218;    Austin's  Juris.,  §499;  Wilson's 


§  26  LEARNING    AND    PREPARING    THE    FACTS.  23 

his  statement  by  reference  to  cases  where  facts  have  been  fabri- 
cated.^ 

§  26.  Chief  object  of  preparatory  investigation. — The  pre- 
paratory investigation  is  prosecuted  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
the  ruling  facts  of  the  case,  and  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
gathering  a  mass  of  evidence.  Facts  more  potent  than  those 
apparent  from  the  positive  testimony  are  secured  by  a  process 
of  inference.  The  search,  if  properly  conducted,  will  be  for 
the  ultimate  facts  which  rule  the  case,  and  to  obtain  these  the 
searcher  must  infer,  from  facts  stated  to  him,  his  own  con- 
clusions. The  inductive  process  is  the  primary  one.  A  num- 
ber of  particulars  are  brought  together,  and  from  these  infer- 
ences are  made.  It  is  obvious  that  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
particulars  the  facts  can  not  be  known,  and  one  who  is  igno- 
rant of  the  facts,  though  he  may  know  something  of  the  evi- 
dence, can  not  effectively  take  the  first  step  in  the  preparation  of 
the  theory  of  the  case.  The  conclusions  will  be  of  little  avail  if 
drawn  only  in  shadowy  outline,  for  the  outlines  must  be  bold, 
and  the  foreground  and  background  must  be  laid  out  in  the 
mental  conception  as  in  a  picture.  If  no  more  than  a  dim,  in- 
distinct view  of  the  facts  is  secured  the  advocate  will  make  but 
a  lame  and  halting  progress  in  determining  upon  the  theory  he 
will  adopt,  and  without  a  skillfully  constructed  theory  he  will 
go  stumbling  through  the  contest. 

§  27.  Rules  of  induction  to  be  observed. — The  rules  of  in- 
duction must  be  carefully  observed,  and  the  particulars  relied 
on  must  be  sufficient  in  number  and  character  to  supply  a  sub- 
stantial foundation  for  the  conclusions  of  fact.  The  famous 
Tichborne  case  affords  a  striking  illustration  of  the  gathering 
together  of  a  multitude  of  particulars,  and  from  them  inferring 
the  conclusion  that  the  claimant  was  the  butcher,  Arthur 
Orton,  and  not  the  baronet,  Roger  Tichborne.     Many  of  the 

'  Burrill's  Circumstantial  Evid.,  219 ;  was  false."     See,  also,  as  to  the  mean- 
Swift  used  the   word  "fact"  in  the  ing  of  the  term  "  facts  "  in  pleading, 
same  sense  as  the  lawyers  do,  for  he  7  Am.  and  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  G58. 
says  in  one  of  his  works,  "The   fact 


24  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  28 

sketches  of  Edgar  A.  Poe  are  wonderful  exliibitions  of  the  tal- 
ent of  inferring  a  conclusion  of  fact  from  circumstances,  and 
well  deserve  the  study  of  the  advocate.  All  the  great  thinkers 
in  physical  philosophy  were  masters  of  the  inductive  process, 
and  few  better  illustrations  of  the  practical  application  of  the 
principles  of  inductive  reasoning  can  be  found  tlian  those  ex- 
hibited in  their  works.  The  careful  and  keen  discrimination 
that  discovers  the  material  particulars  which  support  the  con- 
clusion sought,  and  rejects,  by  elimination,  the  irrelevant  ele- 
ments, is  as  important  to  the  lawyer  as  to  the  philosopher,  and 
material  assistance  may  be  obtained  by  the  former  from  a  study 
of  the  works  of  the  latter.  The  advocate  who  gathers  a  multi- 
tude of  particulars  together,  and  does  not  infer  conclusions  of 
fact  from  them,  makes  no  more  real  progress  than  did  the  nat- 
uralists of  old,  who  never  ascended  above  particulars  to  general 
conclusions.  Without  careful  and  discriminating  inductive 
reasoning,  generalization  is  impossible,  and  without  logical 
generalization  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain  to  what  class  a  case 
belongs,  or  by  what  principles  it  is  governed. 

§  28.   Witness  should  be  allowed  to  tell  his  own  story.— The 

witness  should,  as  a  general  rule,  be  allowed  to  tell  his  own 
story,  kept,  however,  with  a  gentle  but  firm  hand  to  the  facts. 
It  is  especially  necessary  to  be  vigilant  in  obtaining  testimony 
of  oral  conversations,  for  witnesses  are  prone  to  give  their  own 
conclusions  rather  than  the  words  actually  used  by  the  parties'. 
An  eminent  and  experienced  judge  says:  "With  reference  to 
all  evidence  of  conversations,  you  must  bear  in  mind  this: 
that  where  the  evidence  depends  on  the  very  words  used  there 
is  a  possibility  that  the  witness  may  be  clothing  in  his  own 
language  that  which  he  thought  was  meant,  when  if  you  had 
the  very  words  which  had  been  originally  uttered,  you  might 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  something  else  was  intended."^  A 
witness  who  gives  his  own  conclusions,  and  not  the  words, 
does  much  injury  to  a  case,  for  a  cross-examination  will  dis- 

'  Sir  C.  Cresswell  in  Keats  v.  Keats,  28  L.  J.  Mat.  Cases,  169;  1  Pulling 
on  Attorneys,  193. 


§29  LEAKNINti    AND    PRP^'AIUXC    THK    FACTS.  25 

close  his  error,  and  the  jury  will  be  very  apt  to  look  upon  him 
as  a  corrupt  witness  who  has  endeavored  to  supplant  with  his 
own  inferences  the  words  used  by  the  parties.  The  mischief 
may  extend  further  than  the  breaking  down  of  the  witness,  be- 
cause the  inference  of  the  jury  will  very  likely  be,  that  the 
party  by  whom  the  witness  was  introduced  meant  to  impose 
upon  them  by  placing  before  them  the  testimony  of  an  un- 
truthful witness.  Jurors  are  very  sensitive,  and  warmly  resent 
any  effort  to  deceive  them,  not  only  because  it  discredits  their 
intelligence,  but  also  because  they  respect  fair  and  open  meas- 
ures. 

§  29.   Seciirino:    knowledge   of   unfavorable    evidence. — It 

is  in  obtaining  evidence  of  oral  conversations,  more,  perhaps, 
than  elsewhere,  that  the  danger  lies  of  bringing  reproach  upon 
the  advocate's  client  and  cause,  for  witnesses  are  almost  al- 
ways favorable  to  the  party  who  calls  them,  and  this  feeling 
induces  them  to  conceal  or  color  parts  of  a  conversation;  but, 
as  the  adverse  party  is  entitled  to  the  whole  conversation,  it  is 
wrenched  from  the  witness  on  cross-examination,  and  when 
it  comes  in  that  manner  it  falls  heavily  upon  the  party  by 
whom  the  witness  was  called.  It  is  better  to  know  of  the  un- 
favorable evidence  in  advance  of  the  trial,  since  this  will  allow 
time  to  secure  explanatory  or  nullifying  evidence,  and  will 
prevent  the  discomfiture  that  a  surprise  often  causes. 

§  30.  Meeting  unfavorable  evidence. — It  is  safer  to  meet 
unfavorable  evidence  boldly  and  openly  than  to  attempt  to 
evade  or  conceal  it,  so  that,  even  if  the  advocate  proceeds  on 
no  higher  ground  than  that  of  policy,  he  should  encounter  the 
adverse  evidence  in  the  open  field.  Boldness  and  frankness 
will  succeed  where  artifice  and  cunning  will  fail.  For  these 
reasons,  it  is  well  to  draw  from  the  witness,  in  the  preliminary 
examination,  all  of  the  conversation,  and  not  leave  it  to  the 
cross-examination  to  develop  it  in  detail  for  the  first  time.  If 
the  witness  is  reluctant  to  give  it  in  full,  he  must  be  plied 
with  questions,  such  as  a  cross-examiner  would  employ,  to 
bring  it  out  uncolored  by  his  own  impressions,  and  in  full. 


26  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  31 

§  31.  DiSerence  between  gathering  materials  and  present- 
ino"  case  in  court. — There  is  an  essential  difference  between  the 
work  of  gathering  the  materials  and  the  work  to  be  done  in 
developing  and  presenting  the  case  in  court.  In  prosecuting 
the  preliminary  investigation  the  facts  must  be  scrutinized 
with  almost  microscopic  power;  not,  however,  so  much  for  the 
purpose  of  fastening  details  in  the  memory  as  for  the  purpose 
of  discovering  and  fixing  in  the  mind  the  strong  points  of  the 
case.  Lord  Abinger's  practice,  as  he  says  in  his  memoirs, 
was  to  hunt  for  and  secure  the  strong  points.^  This  is  the 
hunt  every  great  advocate  makes,  and,  although  it  may  lead 
into  by-paths  and  out-of-the-way  places,  he  never  loses  sight  of 
the  object  of  his  search.  It  is  not  of  so  much  importance  that 
many  points  be  discovered  as  it  is  that  the  strong  ones  be 
brought  out  and  placed  before  the  jury  in  a  light  so  great  as  to 
exhibit  their  full  force,  ^sop's  fable  of  the  cat  and  the  fox  well 
illustrates  the  case  of  an  advocate  with  many  points,  while  his 
adversary  has  only  one,  but  that  a  capital  one. 

§  32.  Committing  evidence  to  memory. — The  advocate  who 
merely  commits  the  evidence  to  memory  can  not  present  the 
facts  with  strength  or  force  to  a  jury.  They  must  be  wrought 
out  and  crystallized  by  thought,  for  an  advocate  whose  mind 
is  choked  with  undigested  materials  will  perceive  but  faintly 
and  dimly  the  strong  points  of  his  case,  and  will  present  them 
feebly  and  obscurely.  The  facts  must  be  fully  and  distinctly 
in  his  own  mind,  and  go  to  the  jury  clearly  cut  and  sharply 
defined.  It  is  not  by  fastening  the  evidence  in  memory  that 
success  is  assured,  but  by  thinking  and  reasoning  out  the 
strong  points  of  the  case.  The  case  must  be  investigated  for 
a  twofold  purpose — for  the  facts,  and  for  the  means  of  placing 
them  before  the  triers;  but  the  principle  which  governs  in  the 
investigation  is  not  the  same  as  that  which  controls  the  de- 
velopment and  presentation  of  the  facts.  The  work  of  extract- 
ing the  facts  which  give  tone  and  color  to  the  case  must  not  be 
left  for  the  jury  to  do,  but  must  be  done  by  the  advocate.     In 

'  Memoir  of  Lord  Abinger,  61-62. 


§33  LEAKNINU    AND    PKKl'AlilNii    TllK    FACTS.  27 

doing  this  work  he  must  of  necessity  push  his  way  along 
devious  paths  leading  crookedly  tlirough  many  details;  but  he 
must  bring  order  out  of  confusion  and  make  the  path  straight 
and  easily  found. 

§  33.  Nature  of  evidence. — The  evidence  exhibits  the  facts, 
but  the  evidence  is  the  means  of  proof,  not  the  body  of  facts." 
The  investigation  is  to  be  so  made  as  to  dig  out  the  facts  and 
secure  the  means  of  exhibiting  them,  but  not  so  as  to  choke  the 
mind  with  a  mass  of  material.  It  is  one  thing  to  so  conduct 
the  investigation  of  the  case  as  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  and  quite  anotlier  thing  to  convey  that  knowledge  to  the 
minds  of  others.  The  effective  advocate  presents  to  the  jury, 
not  the  crude  materials  he  has  collected,  but  the  results  which 
his  work  has  produced  from  the  materials  he  has  gathered  in 
his  investigation. 

§  34.  Use  of  crude  materials. — The  crude  materials  are 
worked  into  new  forms  and  shapes  before  they  are  laid  before 
the  jury  in  argument.  It  may  be  necessary,  and,  indeed,  al- 
most always  is  necessary,  to  give  much  evidence  to  the  jury, 
but  it  should  be  evidence  that  has  weight  and  force,  for  weak 
evidence,  like  a  weak  argument,  detracts  from  the  force  of  the 
strong.  But  until  the  materials  are  thoroughly  examined  what 
is  weak  and  what  is  strong  can  not  be  known,  so  that,  while 
all  the  details  are  not  to  be  presented  in  argument,  they  must 
be  brought  into  a  full  light  by  the  preliminary  investigation. 
The  lives  of  great  advocates,  from  the  time  of  Cicero  to  the 
present,  afford  abundant  proof  of  the  great  power  that  springs 
from  the  faculty  of  investigation  industriously  exercised.  Take, 
as  one  instance  of  many,  that  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  of  whom 
Fisher  Ames  saj^s:  "  It  is  rare  that  a  man,  who  owes  so  much 
to  nature,  descends  to  depend  on  industry  as  if  nature  had  done 
nothing  for  him.  His  habits  of  investigation  were  very  re- 
markable; his  mind  seemed  to  cling  to  his  subject  until  he  had 
exhausted  it.  "'' 

'Schloss  r.  Creditors,  31  Cal.  203;        MVorks  of  Fisher  Ames,  Vol.  II,  p. 
Perry   r.   Dubuque,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   36    200. 
Iowa,  106;  1  Greenl.  Ev.,  §  1. 


28  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  35 

§  35.  Means  of  making  facts  evident  to  jury. — It  is  not 
enough  to  obtain  information  of  the  facts ;  this  information 
must  be  supplemented  by  a  knowledge  of  the  means  of  making 
them  evident  to  the  triers  of  the  case.  The  means  of  making 
the  facts  evident  are  prescribed  by  law.  Where  the  evidence 
can  be  found,  and  what  its  character  is,  are  matters  almost  as 
important  as  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  themselves ;  for  it  would 
profit  little  if  the  means  of  making  the  facts  evident  were  not 
at  command,  however  thorough  the  knowledge  of  the  facts  may 
be.  The  information  as  to  the  means  of  establishing  the  facts 
must  be  something  more  than  the  mere  inference  or  judgment 
of  the  client.  It  must  be  information  of  the  evidence  as  it 
actually  exists.  It  may  be  that  material  facts  can  only  be 
proved  by  w^ritten  evidence,  or  it  may  be  that  only  a  particular 
kind  of  documentary  evidence  is  competent;  or,  again,  it  may 
be  that  only  a  particular  class  of  witnesses  will  be  permitted 
to  testify.  Interest  may  disqualify,  capacity  may  be  wanting, 
or  lack  of  skill  may  constitute  incompetency.  Much,  there- 
fore, must  often  be  ascertained  in  order  to  determine  whether 
the  evidence  will  be  received. 

§  36.  Ascertaining  reputation  of  witnesses. — It  is  often  nec- 
essary to  ascertain  the  reputation  of  the  witnesses,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  their  competency,  but  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  means  of  attacking  or  defending  that  reputation, 
as  the  case  may  require.'  It  may  happen  that  the  character  of 
the  witness  is  so  bad  that,  although  he  may  speak  the  truth,  it 

'  A  case  mentioned  by  Mr.  Mon-  testimony.  An  accidental  question, 
tagu  Williams  illustrates  the  import-  addressed  to  her  sister,  who  followed 
ance  of  ascertaining  information  as  to  her  as  a  witness,  elicited  the  answer: 
the  reputation  and  associates  of  ad-  "Yes,  I  do  remember  his  coming 
verse  witnesses.  He  says  that  the  to  our  house  and  asking  for  my  sister, 
case  of  a  client  represented  by  him-  He  asked  for  her  by  her  nickname." 
self,  Sergeant  PaiTy  and  Mr.  Straight,  "Nickname!  What  is  her  nick- 
depended  entirely  on  the  testimony  name?" 

of  a  young  and  attractive  girl;  that  The  witness  answered :    "They  call 

Sergeant  Parry,  a  very   great  cross-  her  Cock  Robin." 

examiner,   had  endeavored  to  break  "From    that    moment,"   says    Mr. 

her  down,  but  was  unable  to  shake  her  AVilliains,  "the  case  was  at  an  end." 


§  37  LEARNING    AND    I'KKrARIXG    THE    FACTS.  29 

will  require  a  strong  array  of  circuinstaiices  to  fortify  his  tes- 
timony, or  that  other  testimony  will  be  required  to  corroborate 
it.  The  business  of  the  principal  witnesses  should  be  known, 
and,  in  many  cases,  their  associations  and  surroundings,  for 
this  information  will  be  of  great  importance  in  selecting  a  jury, 
since  it  is  expedient  to  select  jurors  who  are  least  likely  to  be 
prejudiced  against  the  witnesses.  Nor  is  the  investigation  to 
be  confined  to  the  witnesses  of  the  client  the  advocate  repre- 
sents; the  information  as  to  the  reputation,  habits,  life  and 
character  of  the  adversary's  witnesses  should  be  as  thorough 
as  possible.  This  information  will  be  of  assistance,  not  only 
in  selecting  the  jury,  but  also  in  examining  the  witnesses  on 
the  trial. 

§  37.  Identification  of  persons. — It  is  also  of  importance  in 
many  instances  to  secure  competent  evidence  of  the  identity  of 
persons.^  The  reports  contain  many  cases  showing  the  im- 
portance of  securing  competent  and  satisfactory  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  persons  engaged  as  parties  or  as  participants  in 
transactions  which  the  litigation  concerns.^  The  adjudged 
cases  show,  also,  that  there  is  much  uncertainty  in  evidence  of 
identification,  and  that  witnesses  are  often  in  error. ^  There  is 
often  great  difficulty  in  satisfactorily  identifying  persons,  by 
indirect  facts  and  attendant  circumstances  seemingly  of  no 
great  value,  and  much  strength  is  frequently  added  to  the  di- 
rect testimony  of  witnesses  who  testify  as  to  personal  identity, 
so  that  it  is  necessary  to  search  for  and  secure  evidence  of  cir- 
cumstances which  corroborate  and  give  strength  to  the  direct 

'The  question  of  identity  is  one  of  bury,  58  Me.  238;  Dupoyster  v.  Gag- 
fact.  Ellsworth  V.  Moore,  5  Iowa,  486 ;  ani,  84  Ky.  403;  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.  tj. 
Chandler  v.  Shehan,  7  Ala.  251;  Peo-  Miller,  2  Col.  Ty.  442;  Ruloff  v.  Peo- 
ple V.  Rolfe,  61  Cal.  540.  pie,  45  N.  Y.  213;    Linsday  v.  People, 

'People  V.  Williams,  20  Ilun,  520;  63  N.  Y.  143. 

White  V.  Conimonwealth,  80  Ky.  480 ;  » Ram  on  Facts,  462 ;    Harris'  Before 

Hopper  V.   Commonwealth,  6  Gratt.  and   at  the  Trial   (Am.  ed.),  372;    1 

684;    Hamby  v.  State,  36  Texas,  523;  Southern  L.  J.  302;  Legal  Puzzles,  183 ; 

Commonwealth  v.   Cunningham,  104  Sergeant     Ballentine's    Experiences, 

Mass.   545;    American,    etc.,    Co.    v.  Ciiaps.  xli,  xlii ;  Wharton  &StilleMed- 

Spellman,  90  111.  455;   State  v.  Kings-  ical  Juris.,  §§  620,  626,  649. 


30 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§38 


testimony  that  comes  from  the  witnesses  who  testify  upon  that 
question.* 

§  38.  Means  of  identifying  persons. — There  are  many  modes 
and  means  of  identifying  a  person. ^  It  is  held  in  some  of  the 
cases  that  a  person  may  be  identified  by  his  voice/  but  this  is 
regarded  as  uncertain  evidence  of  identification  by  some  of  the 
law  writers/  except  in  cases  where  the  voice  of  the  person  thus 
identified  is  a  peculiar  one.^     Identification  by  the  voice  is  a 


'Photographs  are  often  very  valu- 
able means  of  identifying  persons  and 
things.  Keyes  v.  State,  122  Ind.  527; 
Cozzens  v.  Higgins,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y.), 
206;  Blair  v.  Pelham,  118  Mass.  420; 
Udderzook  v.  Commonwealth,  76  Pa. 
St.  340;  Church  v.  City  of  Milwaukee, 
31  Wis.  512;  Commonwealth  v.  Coe, 
115  Mass.  481 ;  Ruloff  v.  People,  45  N. 
Y.  213 ;  Luke  v.  Calhoun  County,  52 
Ala.  115;  Regina  v.  Tolson,  4  Post.  & 
F.  103;  Barnes  v.  Ingalls,  39  Ala.  193; 
Scharble  v.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  9  Phila. 
136;  Cowley  v.  People,  83  N.  Y.  464; 
Beavers  v.  State,  58  Ind.  530.  Some 
very  interesting  and  instructive  cases 
showing  the  use  of  photography  in 
judicial  matters  will  be  found  in  the 
books.  It  has  been  used  to  expose  a 
forgery.  Wharton  Cr.  Ev.  (8th  ed.), 
544.  To  prove  a  signature  genuine. 
13  Alb.  L.  J.  407.  To  show  the  differ- 
ence between  bread  made  in  different 
ways.  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker, 
11  Blatch  (U.  S.  C.),552. 

2  Burrill  Circumstantial  Evidence, 
269;  Wharton's  Crim.  Evidence  (8th 
ed.),  §808;  Rex  v.  Brook,  31  St.  Tr. 
1137.  The  body  of  a  dead  person  may 
be  identified  by  the  teeth.  The  cele- 
brated case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Web- 
ster, 5  Cush.  295.  See,  also.  State  v. 
Williams,  7  Jones  (N.  C),  446.  See, 
generally,  Linsday  v.  People,  63  N.  Y. 
143 ;  Rex  v.  Clews,  4  Carr  &  P.  221 ; 
McCuUoch  V.  State,  48  Ind.  109 ;  Rus- 


ton  V.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  432 ;  Curry  ??. 
State,  7  Tex.  App.  267 ;  Mullery  v. 
Hamilton,  71  Ga.  720;  Tichborne's 
Case,  3  Wharton  &  Stille  Med.  Juris., 
§  623 ;  State  v.  Kepper,  65  Iowa,  745. 

» Davis  V.  State,  15  Tex.  App.  594; 
Commonwealth  v.  Hayes,  138  Mass. 
185;  Commonwealth  v.  Williams,  105 
Mass.  62 ;  Messner  v.  People,  45  N.  Y. 
1;  Rex  V.  Harrison,  12  State  Tr.  850; 
Brown  v.  Commonwealth,  76  Pa.  St. 
319.  See,  generally,  Commonwealth 
V.  Scott,  123  Mass.  222;  King  v.  Dona- 
hue, 110  Mass.  155 ;  Regina  v.  Chev- 
erton,  2  Post.  &  F.  833. 

*  1  Southern  Law  Review,  395. 

^  Mr.  Walter  Besant,  in  The  Ivory 
Gate,  gives  strong  reasons  in  sup- 
port of  the  theory  that  the  voice  is 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  identity  of 
a  person.  We  copy  from  his  book  the 
following:  "The  voice  of  this  dis- 
tinguished person  Chockley  knew. 
But  the  other  voice — that  he  knew 
well.  And  he  could  not  remember 
whose  voice  it  was.  Very  well  he  re- 
membered the  sound  of  it.  Some  men 
never  forget  a  face ;  some  men  never 
forget  a  shape  or  figure;  some  men 
never  forget  c.  voice ;  some  men  never 
forget  a  hand-writing.  A  voice  is  the 
simplest  thing,  after  all,  to  remember, 
and  the  most  unchanging.  From 
eighteen  till  eighty  a  man's  voice 
changes  not,  save  that  in  volume  it 
decreases  during  the  last  decade ;  the 


§  38 


LEARNING    AND    I'RKrAlU  N<  i    TIIK    FACTS. 


31 


weak  mode  of  identifying  a  perscjn,  unless  the  voice  is  one 
marked  by  some  distinctive  peculiarity,  or  the  witnesses  from 
whom  the  testimony  conies  are  well  acquainted  with  the  voice 
of  the  person  whose  identity  is  in  question.  Voices  may  be 
disguised  l)y  physical  causes,  or  by  the  effort  of  the  person 
whose  identity  is  in  question,  and  so  may  features  and  other 
physical  parts  of  men.  The  question  of  identity  is  one  of  fact 
and  not  of  law."  As  the  question  is  one  of  fact,  all  evidence  bear- 
ing upon  the  question  must  be  submitted  to  the  jury,  and  it  is 
for  the  jury  to  determine  whether  it  is  satisfactory  and  trust- 
worth3^-  Circumstances  may  establish  the  identity  of  a  person 
and  it  is  competent  to  give  evidence  of  his  family  connections, 
his  associations,  his  home  and  the  like.^  There  is  a  conflict. in 
the  cases  as  to  whether  identity  of  persons  can  be  assumed  from 
the  identity  of  names,''  but  we  incline  to  the  opinion  that  from 
the  mere  identity  of  names  it  can  not  be  assumed  that  there  is 
identity  of  person,  but  such  a  fact  supplemented  by  evidence 


distinguishing  quality  of  the  voice  re- 
mains the  same  till  the  end."  The 
Bible,  as  every  one  knows,  furnishes 
an  instance  where  the  sense  of  feeling 
prevailed  over  the  evidence  of  the  hear- 
ing— "The  voice  is  Jacob's  voice,  but 
the  hands  are  the  hands  of  Esau. 
And  he  discerned  him  not,  because 
his  hands  were  hairy,  as  his  brother 
Esau's  hands;  so  he  blessed  him." 

>  Hendricks  v.  State,  26  Ind.  493; 
State  V.  Robinson,  39  Me.  150;  Carle- 
ton  ?7.  Townsend,  28  Cal.  219;  Free- 
man V.  Loftus,  6  Jones  Law  (N.  C), 
524;  Ellsworth  v.  Moore,  5  Clarke 
(Iowa),  486.  Where  names  are  the 
same,  slight  additional  evidence  will 
establish  identity.  Bogue  v.  Bigelow, 
29  Vt.  179.  See,  generally,  Kincaid 
V.  Howe,  10  Mass.  203 ;  Jones  v.  Parker, 
20  N.  H.  31;  Brotherline  v.  Ham- 
mond, 69  Pa.  St.  128. 

'  Rex  V.  Hanes,  3  P.  &  F.  144;  Tay- 
lor Med.  Juris.,  403,  404.  Where  evi- 
dence is  competent  it  should  go  to  the 


jury,  although  its  weight  may  not  seem 
very  great  or  important.  Harbor  v. 
Morgan,  4  Ind.  158;  Smith  v.  Hen- 
derson, 9  M.  &  W.  798;  Wilton  t;.  Ed- 
wards, 6  C.  &  P.  677. 

3  Mullery  v.  Hamilton,  71  Ga.  720. 

*  State  V.  McGuire,  87  Mo.  642 ;  Sitler 
V.  Gehr,  105  Pa.  St.  577;  Hoyt  v. 
Davis,  30  Mo.  App.  309;  Simpson  v. 
Dismore,  9  M.  &  W.  46;  Common- 
wealth V.  Costello,  120  Mass.  358 ;  Giles 
V.  Cornfoot,  2  C.  &  K.  653;  Hatcher r. 
Rochelaeu,  18  N.  Y.  87;  Kinney  v. 
Flynn,  2  Durfee  (R.  I.),  319;  Bell  r. 
Brewster,  44  Ohio,  690.  See  Reed  v. 
Gage,  33  Mich.  179;  Houk  r.  Barthold, 
73  Ind.  21 ;  Jones  r.  Tumour,  4  C.  & 
P.  204;  Clements  v.  State,  21  Tex. 
App.  258;  State  r.  Yittum,  9  N.  H. 
519 ;  Inhabitants  of  Dennis  r.  Inhab- 
itants of  Brewster,  7  Gray,  351 ;  Cate& 
V.  Loftus,  3  A.  K.  Marsh  (Ky.),  204; 
Aultman,  M.  &  Co.  r.  Timm.  93  Ind. 
158 ;    Douglas  v.  Dakin,  46  Cal.  49. 


32 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§39 


of    relationship  or  any  evidence  leading  to   the   inference   of 
identity  of  person  will  be  sufficient.' 

§  39.  Identity  of  animals. — Evidence  as  to  the  identity  of 
ordinary  domestic  animals  is  proverbially  unsatisfactory.* 
Where  there  are  peculiar  marks  or  some  unusual  natural  con- 
formation, or  some  distinguishing  scar  caused  by  accident  or 
some  brand,  there  is  not  so  much  uncertainty.^  Where,  however, 
witnesses  undertake  to  testify  to  the  identity  of  a  domestic  ani- 
mal there  is  almost  invariably  conflict  and  uncertainty.  In 
such  cases  witnesses  simply  express  opinions,  for  where  there  is 
no  peculiar  mark,  brand  or  the  like,  there  is  really  no  founda- 
tion for  anything  more  than  an  opinion.^  The  necessity  for 
summoning  other  facts  to  the  support  of  positive  testimony  in 
such  cases  is  so  evident  that  only  the  careless  thinker  or  the 
blunderer  will  overlook  the  importance  of  summoning  to  the 
support  of  such  testimony  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  he 
can  command.^ 


'Collier  V.  Nokes,  2  C.  &  K.  1012; 
Cross  V.  Martin,  46  Vt.  14;  Chamble 
r.  Tarbox,  27  Tex.  139;  Heacock  v. 
Lubukee,  108  111.  641;  Jackson  v. 
King,  5  Cow.  237 ;  Graves  v.  Colwell, 
90  111.  612;  Commonwealth  v.  Cos- 
tello,  120  Mass.  358 ;  Russell  v.  Smyth, 
9  M.  &  W.  810;  Brown  v.  Metz,  33 
111.  339;  Farmers'  Bank  v.  King,  57 
Pa.  St.  202;  Hunt  v.  Stewart,  7  Ala. 
(N.  S.)  525;  State  v.  Bartlett,  55  Me. 
200 ;  Stebbins  v.  Duncan,  108  U.  S.  32 ; 
Mooers  v.  Bunker,  9  N.  H.  420;  Berk- 
ley Peerage  Case,  4  Campb.  401. 

*  Where  the  dispute  is  as  to  the  iden- 
tity of  ordinary  domestic  animals,  the 
advice  of  Polonious  is  valuable. 
"  Beware  of  entrance  to  a  quarrel." 

'  At  bottom,  testimony  upon  ques- 
tions of  identity,  whether  of  person 
or  of  animals,  is  simply  the  expression 
of  opinions,  except,  perhaps,  where 
there  is  some  pecularity  or  distin- 
guishing mark.    Opinions  upon  sucli 


questions  are  generally  of  the  crudest 
kind,  and  seldom  have  any  substantial 
foundation.  We  may  safely  apply  to 
them  Cardinal  Newman's  saying  that : 
"  When  we  speak  of  a  man's  opinions 
what  do  we  mean  but  the  collection 
of  notions  he  happens  to  have?"  In 
many  cases,  it  would  hardly  be  ventur- 
ing too  much  to  say,  in  most  cases, 
where  the  opinion  concerns  identity 
of  persons  or  animals  the  notions  are 
the  result  of  bias  or  prejudice  of  some 
sort,  and  not  those  of  impartial  judg- 
ment. As  this  is  true,  the  one  who 
presents  such  testimony  needs  be  sure 
that  valid  reasons  support  it,  and  that 
it  is  fortified  by  circumstances. 

*  It  is  the  office  of  a  description  in 
an  instrument  to  furnish  the  means  of 
identifying  the  particular  property  to 
which  it  refers.  Mills  v.  Kansas,  etc., 
Co.,  26  Kan.  574.  If  the  instrument 
supplies  the  means  of  identification  it 
will   ordinarily   be  sufficient.     If  the 


§40 


LEARNING    AND    PREPARING    THE    FACTS. 


33 


§  40.  Identity  of  inanimate  personal  property. — There  is 
generally  much  less  diiliculty  in  establishing  the  identity  of 
personal  property  than  in  proving  the  identity  of  persons  or 
the  identity  of  domestic  animals.  As  a  rule  manufactured  ar- 
ticles of  j)ersonal  property  are  not  so  precisely  similar  as  to 
make  it  difhcult  to  identify  a  particular  article  although  there 
may  be  a  general  resemblance ;  but  there  is  sometimes  real  dif- 
ficulty.^ Where  there  are  distinguishing  marks,  as  numbers, 
figures,  brands,  or  the  like,  they  are,  as  is  sufficiently  obvious, 
the  most  satisfactory  evidences  of  identity.  A  description  in 
an  instrument  of  writing  sufficiently  identifies  the  property  if 
it  supplies  the  means  of  identifying  the  particular  property  to 
which  it  refers,  and  where  there  is  such  a  description,  extrinsic 
evidence  may  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  making  the 
identification  complete;^  but  where  the  law  requires  the  de- 


instrument  suggests  proper  inquiry 
and  gives  reasonable  information  as 
to  where  to  make  such  inquiry  and 
how  to  pursue  it,  the  description  will 
as  a  general  rule  be  deemed  sufficient. 
Yant  V.  Harvy,  55  Iowa,  421 ;  Smith 
V.  McLean,  24  Iowa,  322;  Tindall  v. 
Wasson,  74  Ind.  495;  Duke  v.  Strick- 
land, 43  Ind.  494;  McCord  v.  Cooper, 
30  Ind.  9;  Ebberle  v.  Mayer,  51  Ind. 
235;  Connally  v.  Spragins,  G6  Ala. 
258 ;  Rowley  v.  Bartholemew,  37  Iowa, 
374;  Fordyce  v.  Neal,  40  Mich.  705; 
Farwell  v.  Fox,  18  Mich.  166;  Willey 
V.  Snyder,  34  Mich.  60;  Harris  v. 
Kennedy,  48  Wis.  500.  There  must 
of  course  be  some  particular  descrip- 
tion, for  it  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
identify  an  animal  by  employing  a 
generic  term  embracing  all  animals  of 
a  kind,  as  a  horse,  one  cow,  or  the 
like.  If  part  of  a  description  is  proper, 
it  is  not  vitiated  by  an  error  nor  by  sur- 
plusage. Hamner  v.  Smith,  22  Ala. 
433;  Peyton  v.  Ayres,  2  Md.  Ch.  64; 
Reed  v.  Spicer,  27  Cal.  57;  Collins  v. 
Lavelle,  44  Vt.  230. 

'Commonwealth  {•.  Montgomery,  11 


Metcf.  (Mass.)  534;  Burrill  Cir.  Ev. 
658;  Wills  Cir.  Ev.  127.  See,  gener- 
ally. State  V.  Bishop,  73  N.  C.  44; 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Spellman, 
90  111.  455;  Boren  ?j.  State,  23  Texas 
App.  28;  Hill  v.  State,  17  Wis.  697; 
Jupitz  V.  People,  34  111.  516;  Kelly  v. 
State,  1  Texas  App.  628;  Johnson  v. 
State,  1  Texas  App.  333 ;  Poage  v.  State, 
43  Texas,  454. 

••'Partridge  v.  White,  59  Me.  564; 
Spaulding  r.  Mozier,  57  111.  148;  Ellis 
r.  Martin,  60  Ala.  394 ;  Hunt  v.  Shack- 
leford,  56  Miss.  397;  Goff  i-.  Pope,  83 
N.  C.  123;  Bryan  r.  Faucett,  65  N.  C. 
650;  Johnson  r.  Nevill,  65  N.  C.  677; 
Pettis  V.  Kellogg,  7  Cush.  456;  Hard- 
ing t;.  Coburn,  12  Metcf.  (Mass.)  333; 
Burdett  r.  Hunt,  25  Me.  419 ;  Wheel- 
den  V.  Wilson,  44  Me.  11 ;  Goulding  r. 
Swett,  13  Gray,  517;  Lawrence  v.  Ev- 
arts,  7  Ohio  St.  194 ;  Eddy  r.  Caldwell, 
7  Minn.  225;  Winter  r.  Landphere,  42 
Iowa,  471;  Jordan  i'.  The  Bank,  11 
Neb.  499;  Winslow  r.  Insurance  Co., 
4  Mete.  306;  Tompkins  v.  Henderson, 
83  Ala.  391.  See,  generally,  Kellogg 
r.  Anderson,  40  Minn.  207 ;  Tolbert  v. 


34  THK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  41 

scriptioii  to  be  in  tlic  writing,  its  place  can  not  be  entirely  sup- 
plied by  extrinsic  evidence.  Where  the  description  is  so  gen- 
eral, or  so  vague  and  indefinite  as  not  to  supply  the  means  of 
identifying  the  particular  property,  parol  evidence  can  not  sup- 
ply the  defect ; '  for,  where  the  writing  is  required  to  contain 
the  description,  extrinsic  evidence  can  only  be  resorted  to  be- 
cause it  is  the  means  of  completing  the  identification  supplied 
by  the  description  in  the  instrument.  It  is  evident  from  what 
has  been  said  tliat  in  ascertaining  and  preparing  the  facts  it  is 
not  always  safe,  by  any  means,  to  rely  entirely  upon  the  de- 
scription contained  in  a  written  instrument  as  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  personal  property,  for  leave  is  often  required  to  ob- 
tain competent  parol  evidence  to  supplement  the  description 
which  the  writing  contains,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not 
always  proper  to  conclude  that  the  description  in  the  writing, 
although  not  specific  or  definite,  is  so  defective  as  to  be  beyond 
assistance  from  facts  and  circumstances. 

§41.  Identifying  real  property. — In  ascertaining  the  facts 
and  taking  measures  to  procure  evidence  in  cases  where  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  identify  a  tract  or  parcel  of  land,  it  is  often 
essential  to  obtain  extrinsic  evidence  in  order  to  identify  the 
land  described  in  a  deed  or  other  instrument.  It  is  not  true  in 
every  instance  that  the  description  in  a  writing  so  fully  identi- 
fies the  particular  tract  or  parcel  of  land  as  to  make  it  unnec- 
essary to  resort  to  parol  evidence.^  The  office  of  a  description 
in  a  deed  is  to  supply  means  of  identification,^  and  it  is  not 

Horton,   33   Minn.   104;    Johnson    v.  40  Ind.593;  Whittemore  ?;.  Gibbs,  24 

Gnssard,  51  Ark.  410,  S.  C.  3  Law.  R.  N.  H.  484. 

■  Anno.  795.  ^  Patton  v.  Goldsborough,  9  S.  &  R. 
'  Herr  v.  Denver,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Colo.  47;  Abbott'.  Abbot, 51  Me.  575;  Hicks 
406,  S.  C.  6  Law.  R.  Anno.  641;  Rich-  v.  Davis,  4  CaL  67;  Hill  v.  Mason,  7 
ardson  v.  Lumber  Co.,  40  Mich.  203;  Jones  (N.  C),  551;  Cassiday  v.  Con- 
Nicholson  v.  Karpe,  58  Miss.  34;  Cross-  way,  25  Pa.  St.  244;  Raymond  v. 
well  f.  Allis,  25  Conn.  301;  Duke  v.  Longworth,  14  How.  76;  Waterman  v. 
Strickland,  43  Ind.  494;  McCord  v.  Johnson,  13  Pick.  261. 
Cooper,  30  Ind.  9 ;  Frost  v.  Beekman,  ^  Rucker  v.  Steelman,  73  Ind.  396 ; 
1  Johns.  Ch.  285;  Jennings  i;.  Wood,  Sherman  v.  McCarthy,  57  Cal.  507; 
20  Ohio,  261 ;  Hutton  v.  Arnett,  51  111.  Anderson  v.  Hancock,  61  Cal.  88 ;  Hol- 
198.     See,  generally,  Vawter v.  Griffin,  loway  v.  Galliac,  47  Cal.  474;  Irwin 


§  42  I.KAi;NIN(i    AM)    I'IU;i'AUIN(;    THK    FACTS.  35 

necessary  tliat  the  particular  parcel  or  tract  should  be  directly 
and  completely  identified  by  the  description.  It  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  where  the  instrument  is  executed  to  convey 
lands,  or  to  provide  for  the  conveyance,  it  must  contain  a  de- 
scription of  the  land  or  estate,  for  the  statute  requires  such  in- 
struments to  be  in  writing,  and  a  description  is  an  essential 
part  of  the  writing.  Where  there  are  specified  monuments, 
statements  of  courses  and  distances  yield,  for  the  theory  of  the 
law  is  that  deeds  are  made  with  reference  to  an  actual  view  of 
the  premises  by  the  parties  to  the  contract,'  so  that  it  is  of  im- 
portance in  many  instances  to  secure  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
location  of  the  monuments. 

§  42.  Identifying  documents. — It  is  often  incumbent  upon 
the  advocate  in  ascertaining  the  facts  and  taking  steps  to  pro- 
cure competent  evidence  to  make  the  facts  available,  to  provide 
for  the  identification  of  written  instruments.  There  are,  of 
course,  many  cases  where  it  is  not  difficult  to  obtain  satisfactory 
evidence  of  identity ;  but  there  are  cases  where  there  is  real 
difficulty  in  securing  the  necessary  evidence.^  It  often  occurs 
that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  upon  the  question  of  identity, 
and  in  such  case  resort  must  be  had  to  circumstantial  evidence. 

§  43.  Examination  of  client. — An  examination  of  the  client 
is  not  well  conducted  unless  it  reveals  his  weakness  as  well  as 
his  strength.     His  peculiarities,  when  known,  can  be  provided 

r.  Towne,  42  Cal.  326;  Thompson  v.  Daly  v.  Maguire,  6  Blateh.  (IT.  S.  C.) 

Thompson,  52  Cal.  154.  137  ;  Hynes  v.  McDermott,  82  N.  Y.  41, 

'Davis  V.  Rainsford,  17  Mass.  207  S.  C.  37  Am.  R.  538;  Brookes  v.  Tich- 

(210);    Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Page,  borne,  2  Eng.  L.  &  Equ.  374;    Marcy 

23  Ind.  525;    Howe  v.  Bass,  2  Mass.  v.  Barnes,  16  Gray,  161.    See,  gn.r- 

380;  Frost  r.  Spaulding,  19  Pick.  445;  ally,  Taylor  Will   Case,  10  Abb.  Pr. 

McPhersonr. Foster,  4Wiish.C.C.45;  300;    Duffin  v.  People,  107  111.  113,  S. 

Lodge  V.  Barrett,  46  Pa.  St.  477;  Har-  C.  47  Am.  R.  431 ;    Eborn  v.  Zimpel- 

ris  V.  Hull,  70  Ga.  831 ;    Frost  v.  An-  man,  47  Texas,  503,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R. 

gier,  127  Mass.  212.  315;   Tome  r.  Parkercburg,  etc.,  Co., 

"  Photographic  copies  have  been  used  39  Md.  36,  S.  C.  17  Am.  R.  540 ;  Marcy 

with  advantage   in  identifying  docu-  v.  Barnes,  16  Gray,  161,  S.  C.  77  Am. 

ments  and  proving  handwriting.  Luco  Dec.  405;  Foster's  Will,  34  Mich.  21; 

V.  United  States,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  515 ;  Howland's  Will,  4  Am.  Law.  Rev.  625. 


36  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  44 

against  when  they  are  such  as  to  prejudice  liim,  or  their  power 
for  good  can  be  augumented  when  they  are  such  as  to  bring 
him  favor.  His  judgment  as  to  the  materiality  of  testimony, 
oral  or  written,  can  not  be  allowed  to  supplant  that  of  the  ad- 
vocate. If  there  are  any  written  instruments,  contracts,  notes, 
receipts,  letters  or  the  like,  within  his  reach,  they  must  be 
secured,  and  every  scrap  of  them  examined  by  the  advocate, 
and  in  no  event  should  it  be  left  to  the  client  to  determine 
their  materiality.  If  the  consultation  with  him  discloses  a  pro- 
pensity to  do  much  talking,  he  should  be  not  only  advised,  but 
commanded,  to  be  silent.  Oral  admissions  are  often,  as  we  have 
said,  tortured  much  beyond  their  meaning,  and  a  talking  client 
will  open  the  way  for  much  prejudicial  testimony. 

§  44.  Control  of  the  case. — All  letters  concerning  the  case 
should  be  written  or  dictated  by  the  advocate.  All  negotiations, 
after  the  advocate  has  taken  charge  of  the  case,  it  is  his  duty 
to  conduct,  and  of  this  the  client  should  be  informed.  It  is 
the  right  of  the  advocate  to  insist  that  his  advice  be  strictly 
followed,  and  in  the  outset  he  will  do  well  to  so  inform  his 
client. 

§  45.  Tendency  of  clients  to  exaggerate. — Clients  stating 
their  own  claims  are  prone  to  exaggerate  them.  The  longer 
they  think  over  the  matter  the  larger  their  claims  grow.  The 
prudent  advocate,  bearing  this  in  mind,  will  not  be  influenced 
to  press  a  claim  so  greatly  magnified  as  to  seem  ridiculous.  A 
party  who  demands  an  unreasonable  thing  creates  a  bad  im- 
pression at  the  outset,  which  is  likely  to  cling  to  the  cause  as 
tightly  as  the  Old  Man  of  the  Sea  clung  to  Sinbad  the  Sailor. 

§  46.  Written  statements  no  substitute  for  personal  exami- 
nation.— Written  statements,  whether  prepared  by  the  client  or 
the  witnesses,  are  not  substitutes  for  personal  examinations. 
The  reason  for  this  is  manifest;  but,  obvious  as  the  reason  is, 
advocates  often  make  costly  mistakes  in  accepting  written  state- 
ments and  dispensing  with  personal  examinations  of    the  wit- 


§  47  lkai:nin(;   and   i'Ki;i'AiUN(i  thI';   FAcrs.  37 

nesses.      Personal  contact  with  the  witnesses  gives  information 
and  confidence  that  written  statements  can  not  supply. 

§  47.  lut'ormatioii  as  to  client's  business. — Information  as 
to  the  character,  business  and  associates  of  the  client  is  import- 
ant for  more  reasons  than  one.  It  is  important  in  the  work  of 
selecting  the  jury.  Men  carry  their  prejudices  into  the  jury 
box,  and  are  often  controlled  by  them;  sometimes  they  wil- 
lingly yield  to  them,  and  sometimes  they  are  nnconscionsly 
controlled  by  them.  In  passing  through  the  minds  of  men 
warped  by  prejudice  facts  are  tortured  and  twisted  from  their 
natural  effect.  A  piece  of  white  paper  can  no  more  pass  through 
a  pail  of  ink  without  being  discolored  than  can  facts  pass  un- 
colored  through  a  mind  filled  with  preconceived  opinions  and 
prejudices.  Such  a  mind  is  not  unlike  a  vessel  filled  with 
smoke — all  that  goes  into  it  is  darkened. 

§  48.  Prejudice  of  jurors. — Jurors  belonging  to  one  class  are 
often  so  bitterly  prejudiced  against  men  of  another  class  that 
they  will  not  award  them  justice  if  there  is  the  baldest  pretense 
for  evading  duty.  Indeed,  in  many  instances,  prejudice  so  dom- 
inates duty  that  justice  is  denied  without  the  semblance  of  an 
excuse.  Pursuits  make  men  clannish,  and  except  when  envy 
or  rivalry  exists,  men  engaged  in  like  pursuits  will  stand  to- 
gether as  if  engaged  in  a  common  cause.  The  books  contain 
many  instances  where  unjust  verdicts  have  resulted  from  jurors 
allowing  their  prejudices  in  favor  of  those  engaged  in  like  pur- 
suits to  control  their  judgment.  A  jury  of  landlords  will  be 
very  likely  to  deal  unjustly  with  a  tenant  contesting  a  case  with 
his  landlord,  and  a  jury  of  tenants  in  a  like  case  would  be  slow  to 
deal  out  justice  to  the  landlord  however  strong  his  case.  Farmers 
are  almost  always  on  the  side  of  farmers,  and  there  is  usually 
an  impression  in  their  minds  in  favor  of  one  of  their  own  class, 
which  must  be  dislodged  before  the  opposite  side  can  secure  a 
fair  hearing.  A  jury  of  physicians,  unless  of  opposite  schools, 
would  be  a  very  dangerous  one  for  the  plaintiff  in  a  case  of  mal- 
practice. Railroad  men  on  juries  are  almost  always  favorable 
to  a  railroad  company,  and  men  who  dislike  great  corporations, 


38  THK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  49 

or  who  are  jealous  of  power,  or  who  view  with  envy  corpora- 
tions that  have  acquired  wealth  and  influence,  are  almost  al- 
ways unalterably  set  against  a  railroad  company. 

§  49.   Object  of  procuring  knowledge  of  client's  standing. — 

These  liints,  we  know,  are  of  things  so  plain  that  mention 
seems  unnecessary;  and  what  we  suggest  is,  we  know,  old — 
old,  at  least,  as  the  time  of  Plato's  pastry-cook — but,  for  all 
that,  these  hints  may  serve  a  useful  purpose  in  arousing  at- 
tention to  plain  considerations  often  forgotten  or  overlooked. 
But  passing  to  a  somewhat  different  phase  of  the  subject,  we 
shall  find  other  reasons  for  acquiring  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
the  client.  It  is  not  always  expedient  to  select  jurors  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  client  the  advocate  represents.  Some  men 
fare  better  at  the  hands  of  strangers  than  of  acquaintances.  A 
man  whose  reputation  is  not  of  the  best  is  often  safer  in  the 
hands  of  strangers  than  in  the  hands  of  neighbors.  Nor  is  it 
always  best  to  select  acquaintances  as  triers  even  where  there 
is  no  infirmity  in  the  client's  reputation,  for  peculiarities  of 
character  may  create  adverse  prejudices.  But  the  better  the 
jurors  know  a  thoroughly  good  man  the  safer  his  cause  is  in 
their  hands. 

§  50.  Necessity  of  consultation  with  witnesses. — There  are 
cases  where  steps  must  be  taken  without  an  instant's  delay, 
and  in  such  cases  the  advocate  must  act  upon  the  information 
given  by  his  client ;  but  where  there  is  time  for  consultation 
with  the  witnesses  it  should  be  held  before  the  action  or  suit  is 
instituted.  This  is  expedient  not  only  for  the  reason  that  it 
gives  the  advocate  a  firmer  grasp  of  his  case,  but  for  the  ad- 
ditional reason  that  it  often  enables  him  to  procure  an  un- 
prejudiced history  of  the  facts.  Mr.  Chitty  says:  "  It  will, 
moreover,  frequently  occur  that  if  a  minute  inquiry  into  the 
facts  and  evidence  be  made  in  the  first  instance,  before  the  de- 
fendant has  even  heard  of  any  intended  litigation,  the  truth 
will  be  better  elicited  than  if  the  investigation  were  delayed 
until  after  the  defendant  had  cautioned  neighbors  and  witnesses 


§51  l^:arning  and  prkparino  tiik  facts.  39 

from  making  any  communications  that  might  be  adverse  to  his 
interests."' 


§51.  Reasons  for  promptly  examining  witnesses. — There 
is  still  another  reason  for  proi,nptly  examining  witnesses.  Time 
dulls  the  perceptive  faculties  and  quiets  the  interest  and  ardor 
that  the  mind  feels  in  an  occurrence  freshly  brought  before  it. 
Men  are  less  affected  by  a  thing  long  passed  than  l>y  one  of 
recent  date.  If  an  advocate  delays  in  investigating  a  case  he 
will  do  his  work  much  less  efficiently  than  he  would  with  all 
his  faculties  aroused  by  a  matter  fresh  in  his  mind.  It  is  the 
experience  of  most  advocates  that  on  the  second  trial  of  a  cause, 
where  no  new  facts  are  developed,  the  mind  acts  with  much 
less  vigor  and  power  than  on  the  first  trial.  This  is  so  because 
the  facts  do  not  strike  with  the  same  force  they  do  when  the 
mind  is  aroused  by  a  thing  heard  as  of  recent  occurrence,  and 
as  affecting  a  matter  upon  which  immediate  action  is  to  be 
taken.  What  is  true  of  the  advocate  is  true,  although  in  a  less 
degree  of  force,  of  a  witness,  for  the  lapse  of  time  weakens  his 
memory  and  dulls  his  faculties.  It  is,  therefore,  prudent  to 
have  the  preliminary  examination  take  place  with  the  least 
possible  delay. 

§  52.   Fastening  the  facts  in  the  mind. — If  the  facts  are 

once  thoroughly  fixed  in  the  mind  of  the  advocate  the  excite- 
ment of  the  actual  contest  will  bring  them  out  with  undimin- 
ished strength.  If  the  impression  is  made  when  the  mind  is 
warmed  by  the  new  matter  which  invokes  and  arouses  its  pow- 
ers, the  impression  is  not  likely  to  fade,  but  if  no  impression 
is  made  at  the  outset  when  the  mind  is  in  a  condition  to  receive 
and  retain  all  that  is  presented,  it  is  not  probable  that  a  strong 
one  can  be  made  at  any  subsequent  period.  Mr.  Chitty  not 
only  recommends  promptness  in  making  a  preliminary  exam- 
ination of  tlie  witnesses,  but  he  also  recommends  that  the 
questions  and  answers  of  the  principal  ones  be  stated  in  writ- 
es Chitty  Gen.  Pr.  118. 


40  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  53 

ing.'  If  there  be  retison  to  fear  that  the  witnesses  will  change 
their  statements,  either  from  defect  of  memory  or  through  the 
influence  of  corrupt  practices,  this  course  is  expedient,  but  the 
advocate  should  not  trust  to  the  w^ritten  statement.  It  is  his 
duty  to  fasten  the  facts  in  his  mind,  for  it  is  only  by  this 
course  that  he  can  give  them  their  just  weight.  The  facts  he 
must  know,  not  merely  remember.  In  dealing  with  the  facts 
the  advocate  goes  far  beyond  the  witnesses,  for  he  exercises 
other  faculties  than  that  of  memory.  He  must  weigh,  arrange 
and  mould  the  facts  into  a  case,  framed  and  constructed  in  his 
mind.  He  must  have  a  theory  into  which  he  can  place  his 
facts.  This  he  can  do  only  by  making  the  facts  a  part  of  his 
thought-knowledge. 

§  53.    Assumption  that  client  does  not  know  the  law. — la 

his  investigation  of  the  facts  it  is  the  duty  of  the  advocate  to 
assume  that  his  client  has  no  knowledge  of  the  law.  This  as- 
sumption must  control  the  interview  with  the  client,  and  no 
assistance  can  be  expected  from  him  upon  what  he  will  regard 
as  mere  immaterial  and  formal  matters.  The  investigation 
must  be  so  conducted  as  to  bring  these  matters  to  the  attention 
of  the  client.  If  they  are  forgotten  by  the  advocate  they  will 
be  entirely  lost  sight  of.  There  are  many  things  indispensably 
essential  to  success,  which  to  laymen  seem  unimportant,  and 
these  things  must  be  brought  to  the  mind  of  the  client  by  his 
counsel.  In  many  instances  it  is  essential  that  a  demand 
should  precede  the  action ;  in  others,  that  a  tender  should  be 
made;  in  others,  that  a  notice  should  be  served.  Of  these  and 
like  matters  the  counsel  must  inform  his  client,  and  give  him 
the  necessary  instructions. 

§  54.  Taking  client's  opinion. — Although  the  advocate  must 
assume  that  the  client  has  no  knowledge  of  the  law,  and  should 
not  seek  his  opinions  on  law  questions,  yet  it  is  always  wise, 
if  the  client  be  a  person  of  intelligence,  to  secure  his  theory  of 
the  justice  of  his  case.     It  often  happens  that  the  client  will 

'  3  General  Pr.  120. 


§54  LEARNING    AND    FKI<;i'A  KINO    TIIK    FACTS.  41 

form  strong  opinions  of  his  rights,  and  place  tliem  in  a  homely, 
yet  forcible,  way  on  a  foundation  of  natural  justice.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  client  may  thus  often  aid  in  presenting  the  case  to 
a  jury,  for  jurors  are  more  strongly  influenced  by  what  they 
conceive  to  })e  natural  justice  than  by  that  which  they  regard 
as  artificial  law  made  by  lawyers.  The  biographies  of  lawyers 
contain  many  instances  where  the  greatest  advocates  have  won 
their  causes  by  adopting  the  statements  of  their  clients.  Ad- 
vocates do  often  lose  force  by  dwelling  upon  rules  of  law  in- 
stead of  appealing  to  a  sense  of  justice  innate  in  every  man, 
and  so,  too,  they  often  lose  force  by  employing  law  terms  when, 
more  familiar  ones  would  find  a  deeper  lodgment  in  the  minds 
of  jurors.  The  help  they  most  need  may  sometimes  be  sup- 
plied by  the  client's  theory  of  the  justice  and  right  of  his  case.^ 

'  See  Collins'  Cicero,  85. 


CHAPTER  II. 


ASCERTAINING    AND    PREPARING    THE    LAW    OF   THE    CASE. 


§  55.    What  is  to  be  assumed  at  the    §  70. 
outset. 

56.  Provisional  hypothesis.  71. 

57.  Use  of  the  provisional  hypoth-  72. 

esis.  73. 

58.  Object  of  the  search  for  the  law.  74. 

59.  Rudimentary  principles.  75. 

60.  The  search  for  the  law. 

61.  Cases  and  principles.  76. 

62.  Text-books. 

63.  General  principles.  77. 

64.  Determining  weight  and  influ-  78. 

ence  of  decided  cases.  79. 

65.  How  a  decision  should  be  con- 

sidered. 80. 

66.  Considerations  which  affect  81. 

weight  of  decisions.  82. 

67.  Judicial  decisions  not  the  law  83. 

itself— When  authority. 

68.  Obtaining  principles  — Analog-  84. 

ical  reasoning. 

69.  How    to    search    text-books—  85. 

Tables  of  cases.  86. 


Effect  of  increase  in  number  of 
reported  cases. 

Generalization  of  cases. 

Case  lawyers. 

Exceptions  to  general  rules. 

Discrimination. 

Contention  is  usually  as  to  ap- 
plicability of  general  rules. 

Law  periodicals  —  Leading  ar- 
ticles. 

Statutory  law. 

Construction  of  statutes. 

Making  law  of  the  case  avail- 
able. 

Referring  to  general  principles. 

Mind  must  act  quickly. 

Practical  use  of  knowledge. 

Fixing  legal  principles  in  mem- 
ory. 

Knowledge  needed  by  the  ad- 
vocate. 

Business  work. 

Written  notes. 


§  55.  What  is  to  be  assumed  at  the  outset.— At  the  outset, 
the  searcher  for  the  law  of  the  case  must  assume  that  the  case 
for  which  he  is  to  find  the  law  belongs  to  a  particular  class, 
and  is  governed  by  a  settled  principle.  Before  going  to  the 
books  the  investigator  must  have  a  definite  conception  in  his 
own  mind  of  what  he  goes  there  to  find.  This  conception,  if 
clearly  formed,  will  be  a  provisional  hypothesis,  which  will  give 
direction  and  method  to  the  investigation.  Without  a  definite 
hypothesis  the  investigation  will  be  an  aimless  one,  lacking 
both  direction  and  method.  As  well  go  into  a  forest  to  find  a 
tree    without  knowing  what    tree  is  wanted  as  to  attempt  to 

(42) 


§  56  TIIK     LAW    Ol'     llIK    CASK.  43 

search  the  books  withuut  having  some  definite  idea  of  what  is 
to  be  found.'  The  wildest  conjecture  as  to  wliat  is  the  law  is 
better  than  no  conjecture.  A  provisional  hypothesis,  however 
unsound,  is  infinitely  better  than  an  aimless  and  purposeless 
search.  Investigation,  it  is  true,  may  prove  the  hypothesis  to 
be  utterly  unsupported,  but  if  it  does,  the  exposure  of  the  error 
will  serve  to  reveal  the  truth.  An  error  clearly  observed  nearly 
always  points  an  investigator  to  the  true  direction.^ 

§  56.  Provisional  hypothesis. — The  provisional  hypothesis 
is  a  mere  working  conjecture,  not  a  fixed  theory.  The  investi- 
gation is  not  conducted  for  the  simple  purpose  of  proving  the 
soundness  of  the  hypothesis,  but  for  the  purpose  of  testing  it. 
A  case  is  submitted  for  investigation,  and  the  advocate  assumes 
that  it  belongs  to  a  designated  class,  and  falls  under  a  particu- 
lar rule,  and  on  this  assumption  begins  his  examination,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  assumption,  but  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  it  can  be  made  good.  His  as- 
sumption gives  direction  to  his  work,  for  it  places  an  object  be- 
fore him  toward  which  his  steps  must  be  taken.  Without  such 
an  object  before  him  there  could  be  neither  line  to  follow  nor 
method  to  control  his  work.  There  is,  however,  a  danger 
which  is  to  be  avoided.  It  is  the  nature  of  men  to  be  fond 
of  their  own  creations,  and  to  cling  to  them   with  unreasoning 


*  "  For,  as  Plato  says,  a  searcher  sume  to  take  this  upon  me;  but  of 
must  have  some  knowledge  of  the  those  things  that  are  not  law,  inquire 
thing  he  searches  after,  otherwise  he  and  learn  of  my  wise  masters  learned 
will  not  know  when  he  has  found  it."  in  the  law;  notwithstanding  albeit 
Bacon.  that  certain  things  which  are  moved 

"  All  the  greatest  discoveries  of  the  and  specified   in  the  said  books  are 

human  intellect  in  the  various  scien-  not  altogether   law,  yet   such   things 

ces,"  says  Mazzini,  "have  originated  shall  make  thee  more  apt  and  able  to 

in  hypotheses,  afterward  verified  by  understand  and  apprehend  the  argu- 

study."  ments  and  the  reasons  of  the  law,  etc. 

*  Littleton,  in  closing  his  great  work  For  by  the  arguments  and  reasons  in 
on  Tenures,  says:  "  And  know,  my  the  law,  a  man  more  sooner  shall  come 
son,  that  I  would  not  ha.'e  thee  be-  to  the  certainty  and  knowledge  of  the 
lieve,    that  all  which   I   have  said  in  law." 

these  books  is  law,  for  I  will  not  pre- 


44  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  57 

tenacity,  and  this  influence  sometimes  leads  advocates  to  sacri- 
fice a  cause  to  a  favorite  hypothesis. 

§  57.  Use  of  the  provisional  hypothesis.— In  the  search  for 
the  law  of  the  case  the  advocate  proceeds  much  as  a  philos- 
opher who  seeks  to  discover  scientific  truths.  His  provisional 
hypothesis  is  a  means  to  an  end.  It  is  not  a  position  to  be 
defended  at  all  hazards,  hut  one  to  be  held  or  surrendered  as 
investigation  may  result  in  declaring  it  to  be  tenable  or  unten- 
able. In  seeking  the  law  of  the  case  the  advocate  exercises 
functions  similar  to  those  of  the  judge.  But  his  process  dif- 
fers from  that  of  the  judge  and  the  philosopher,  for  he  seeks  a 
rule  that,  applied  to  the  facts,  will  secure  a  judgment  for  his 
client.  This  confines  his  search  and  colors  his  reasonings. 
But  in  this  work  he  is  not  a  partisan,  or  at  all  events  he  should 
not  be  a  partisan,  for  he  seeks  materials  that  may  be  used  in 
the  construction  of  a  theory  which  will  bring  him  success,  and 
cool,  unimpassioned  investigation  is  necessary  to  keep  out  un- 
sound and  unsuitable  materials.  After  the  materials  have  been 
gathered  and  woven  into  the  theory  of  the  case,  then  he  be- 
comes a  partisan,  for  no  man  who  earnestly  takes  up  another's 
cause  can  avoid  becoming  a  partisan.  All  doubt  and  hesita- 
tion are  then  at  an  end,  and  the  position  upon  which  the  case 
is  planted  will  be  maintained  with  all  the  vigor  and  strength 
that  is  at  command.  While  the  investigation  is  in  progress 
the  coolness  and  impartiality  of  a  judge  or  philosopher  give 
strength  and  certainty;  but  when  that  work  is  finished  the 
weapons  of  the  advocate  are  drawn,  and  the  functions  of  phil- 
osopher and  judge  are  displaced  by  those  of  the  combatant. 
The  advocate  is  no  longer  neutral;  thenceforward  his  work  is 
not  to  find  some  position,  but  to  maintain  the  one  he  has  found 
and  occupied. 

§  58.  Object  of  the  search  for  the  law.— The  law  for  which 
one  seeks  with  a  real  case  before  him  is  the  law  of  that  partic- 
ular case.  It  will  not  avail  him  to  know  many  rules  if  he  does 
not  know  the  rule  which  governs  the  case  he  has  in  hand.    An 


§  59  THK    LAW    OK    THE    CASK.  45 

advocate  with  a  case  before  him  has  actual  work  to  do,  not 
merely  principles  or  rules  to  commit  to  memory.  An  architect 
may  be  learned  in  his  profession,  but  if  he  does  not  know  what 
kind  of  11  bridge  is  required  tit  a  particular  place  on  a  particular 
stream,  he  can  not  put  the  bridge  there  that  is  needed.  No  more 
can  an  advocate,  however  much  he  may  know  of  the  law,  suc- 
cessfully conduct  the  trial  of  a  particular  case  unless  he  knows 
the  law  of  that  case.  Books  can  not  tell  him  what  the  law  of  that 
case  is,  although  with  the  aid  of  books,  or  of  previously  acquired 
knowledge,  he  may  reason  it  out;  but  reason  he  must,  and  the 
more  profound  his  learning  the  more  certain  he  will  be  to  reach 
a  right  conclusion.  Ilis  previous  knowledge  must,  at  least,  be 
suHicient  to  enable  him  to  intelligently  construct  a  provisional 
hypothesis;  for  if  he  is  not  able  to  do  this  he  will  be  unable  to 
lay  out  a  line  of  investigation,  and  nuicli  less  will  he  be  able 
to  follow  it  through  the  difficult  paths  it  traverses.  The  man 
who  has  not  fitted  himself  to  conduct  causes  in  judicial  tri- 
bunals by  a  long  course  of  study  of  the  principles  of  jurispru- 
dence is  not  an  advocate;  ''for,"  to  borrow  something  of  the 
language  and  more  of  the  thought  of  Cicero,  "  to  flutter  about 
the  forum,  to  loiter  in  courts  of  justice  and  at  the  tribunals  of 
the  prtetors,  to  undertake  private  suits  in  matters  of  the  great- 
est concern,  in  which  the  question  is  often  not  about  fact  but 
about  equity  and  law,  to  swagger  in  causes  heard  before  the 
centumviri  when  a  man  is  utterly  ignorant  '  of  the  principles 
of  jurisprudence,'  is  a  proof  of  extraordinary  impudence."^ 

§  59.  Rudimentary  principles. — In  giving  to  a  man  the  title 
of  advocate  it  is  implied  that  he  is  learned  in  the  law.'^  It  is 
assumed,  therefore,  that  an  advocate  has  a  knowledge  of  the 
rudimentary  principles  of  the  law  and  of  the  rules  of  plead- 
ing, practice,  and  evidence.^     But  one  who  assumes  that  his 

^  Oratory  and  Orators, Bk.  I,  xxxviii.  "if  many  of  our  young  practitioners 
'"  Remember,"  says  Erskine,  "that  had,  like  Pythagoras  his  si-hoh\rs, 
no  man  can  be  a  great  advocate  who  kept  silence  for  some  years  and  con- 
is  no  lawyer."  suited  with  their  books,  they  would  be 
'  This  may  not  be  a  safe  assumption  the  better  enabled  to  give  the  reason 
to  make  in  favor  of  all  practitioners,  of  the  law." 
"  AVhereas,"  says  Edward  Bulstrode, 


46  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  60 

preparatory  studies  have  fully  equipped  him  for  the  contests 
of  the  forum  is  sadly  deceived.  Jurisprudence  is  "the  col- 
lected reason  of  ages,  combining  the  principles  of  original  jus- 
tice with  the  infinite  variety  of  human  concerns."^  Cases  as 
diverse  as  human  concerns  are  the  subjects  of  study  and  inves- 
tigation in  advocacy,  and  to  these  various  and  often  diverse 
cases,  the  principles  of  what  Burke  calls  original  justice  must 
be  applied.  The  science  of  jurisprudence  is,  as  Judge  Story 
says,  "of  such  vast  extent  and  intricacy,  of  such  severe  logic 
and  nice  dependencies,  that  it  has  always  tasked  the  highest 
minds  to  reach  even  its  ordinary  boundaries."^ 

§  60.  The  search  for  the  law. — The  most  learned  advocate 
has  many  a  weary  hunt  for  the  law  of  his  case.  His  learning 
guides  him  in  his  search,  but  it  does  not  always  yield  him  the 
support  he  needs.  It  points  him  to  the  spring  and  shows  him 
the  road  to  the  fountain,  but  it  seldom  does  more.  The  search 
in  which  his  learning  is  his  guide  leads  him  through  the  de- 
cisions of  the  courts  and  the  works  of  the  great  lawyers.  These 
are  the  sources  from  which  the  law  of  the  case  must  be  ob- 
tained.^ If  a  text-book  be  the  work  of  a  philosophic  lawyer, 
it  will  discuss  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  law;  if  the 
decision  be  that  of  an  able  judge,  it  will  show  the  application 
of  those  principles  to  particular  cases.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be 
expected  that  the  clearest  knowledge  of  the  principles  will  be 
conveyed  by  the  text-writers,  while  the  clearest  conception  of 
their  application  will  be  conveyed  by  the  judicial  judgment. 
Both  the  principles  and  their  application  ought  thus  to  be 
sought  and  found. 

§  61.  Cases  and  principles. — Jurisprudence  is  a  practical 
science.  It  is  a  science  of  principles.  Cases  illustrate  prin- 
ciples, but  they  do  not  create  them.*  The  law  is  not  a  mere 
collection  of  cases  strung  together  upon  a  slender  thread  of  re- 

^  Burke.     Reflections  on  the  Revo-  ^  "  Whoever  goes  in  quest  of  knowl- 

lution  in  France.  pflge,  let  him  fish  for  it  where  it  is  to 

'  Story's  Life  and  Letters,  VoL  III,  be  found."     Montaigne. 

145.  "  Paul  V.  Davis,  100  Ind.  422. 


§  62  THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  47 

semblances.  The  learning  of  the  advocate  available  for  prac- 
tical use  is  of  principles  and  their  application.  Professor 
Wtis]il)iirne  says:  "The  learning  of  the  lawyer  does  not  con- 
sist so  much  of  principles  as  of  the  relation  wliich  these  hold 
to  each  other  in  their  general  application."'  There  is  much 
of  truth  in  this  statement,  yet  there  is  enough  of  error  to  make 
it  misleading  if  taken  without  qualification.  It  is  impossible 
to  understand  the  relation  of  principles  to  one  another  without 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  principles  themselves.  This  is 
the  basis  of  scientific  knowledge,  without  which  there  will  be 
little  hope. of  successfully  making  a  way  through  the  thorny 
and  intricate  labyrinths  of  jurisprudence. 

§  62.  Text-books. — The  text-books  which  are  to  be  regarded 
as  the  sources  of  knowledge  are  those  which  discuss  principles, 
and  not  those  which  collect  cases  without  discussing  them. 
Many  of  our  modern  law-books  are  not  scientific  treatises,  and 
can  not  be  accepted  as  authority,  for  they  are  little  else  than 
digests.  They  may  be  valuable  as  indexes,  but  they  are  not 
the  books  that  should  be  studied.  It  is  not,  however,  always 
safe  to  implicitly  rely  on  text-books  of  the  highest  character, 
for  errors  in  them  have  often  been  exposed  by  the  courts.^  On 
the  other  hand,  text- writers  have  detected  and  corrected  the 
errors  of  the  courts.^  A  knowledge  of  principles,  without 
capacity  to  apply  them,  is  of  no  practical  value.  Indeed,  a 
knowledge  of  principles  without  a  knowledge  of  their  practical 
application  is  almost  as  likely  to  result  in  harm  as  good.* 

'  Study  and  Practice  of  Law,  64.  abridgments,  for  the  chief  use  of  them 

"  Shurtleff  r.  :Minard,  12  R.  I.  272,  S.  is  as  of  tables  to   find   the  books  at 

C.   34    Am.    Rep.   640;     Robinson   v.  large,  but  I  exhort  every  student   to 

Weeks,  56  Me.  102;    Union  Bank  v.  read    and    rely   on   the  books  them- 

Munster,  57  L.  J.  (N.  S.)  124;    House  selves."    5  Rep.  25.   See,  also,  preface 

V.  Alexander,  105  Ind.  109,  S.  C.  55  to  4  Rep.  X. 

Am.   Rep.   189;    Ram's  Legal   Judg-  '  Ram  Legal  Judgments,  169. 

ments,  Chap.  XII.     Some  of  the  En-  *Quintilian  says  that  the  advocate 

glish  judges  have   censured,  but  not  "must  not  merely  look  to  principles, 

justly,   as   we  think,  the  practice  of  but  must  have  them   in  readiness  to 

citing  the  works  of  living  writers.    37  act  upon  them ;  not  as  if  they  luid  been 

Albany  L.  J.  206.    "Take  heed,  read-  taught  him,  but  as  if  they  had  been 

er,"  says  Chief  Justice  Coke,  "of  all  born  him." 


48  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  63 

§63.  General  principles. — Mr.  Warren  says  that  "  It  re- 
quires the  nicest  discrimination  to  ascertain  whether  a  partic- 
ular case  falls  within  the  general  rule,  or  is  governed  by  some 
of  its  endless  limitations  and  exceptions,  and  this  discrimina- 
tion must  be  the  result  of  calm,  leisurely  and  extensive  study 
and  practical  experience.  General  principles  are  edge  tools  in 
the  hands  of  the  legal  tyro,  and  he  must  take  care  how  he 
handles  them."^  The  reported  cases  bear  out  Mr.  Warren's 
statement  that  ''general  principles  are  edge  tools,"  to  be  care- 
fully handled;  but,  for  all  that,  the  workman  must  have  these 
tools.  His  advice  to  study  calmly  and  leisurely  is  wise  as  ap- 
plied to  the  mere  student,  but  it  is  not  safe  for  the  lawyer  who 
is  preparing  a  case  for  trial  to  follow  it,  for,  when  the  work  ot 
preparation  begins,  the  mind  must  be  aroused  to  its  utmost. 
The  investigator  should  not  work  leisurely  or  calmly,  but  de- 
terminedly, and  with  an  almost  fanatical  enthusiasm.  His 
mind  must  be  concentrated  upon  the  work.  He  must,  as  De- 
Quincey  says,  "have  an  eye  single  to  tlie  assault."  This  earn- 
estness and  enthusiasm,  it  is  obvious,  is  not  compatible  with 
a  leisurely  and  calm  deliberation.  All  advocates  who  have 
had  long  experience  know  that  when  the  work  of  determining 
the  law  of  the  case  actually  begins  there  is  a  warmth  and  a 
glow  that  arouses  the  faculties  and  excites  them  to  energetic 
and  effective  work.  There  must  be  a  purpose  and  a  determina- 
tion in  the  search  strong  enough  to  arouse  the  mind  to  active 
effort,  or  it  is  very  likely  to  be  a  fruitless  quest. 

§  64.   Determinin;^  weight  and  influence  of  decided  cases. — 

In  determining  the  weight  and  applicability  of  a  decided  case 
the  first  work  is  to  ascertain  what  points  were  really  decided, 
for  much  that  is  found  in  the  opinions  of  the  judges  is  mere 
argument  and  illustration.  These  arguments  and  illustrations 
merit  study,  for,  while  they  are  not  declarations  of  the  law, 
yet  they  contain  statements  of  analogous  legal  principles,  and 
often  refer  to  authorities  that  afford  very  valuable  assistance  in 
the  investigation.     When  the  reasoning  of  the  case  is  against 

^  Warren's  Law  Studies,  325. 


§  64  THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  49 

the  view  of  the  investigator  he  should  trim  the  case  down  to 
the  exact  points  presented  and  decided,  and  then  test  the  reason- 
ing by  comparison  with  principle.  It  is  never  safe,  it  may  be 
noted  in  passing,  to  rely  upon  the  reporter's  head-notes  of  a 
case.  They  are  not  always  correct,  and  even  when  correct 
they  do  not  convey  that  close  and  distinct  perception  of  the 
case  which  is  indispensably  essential  to  a  full  comprehension 
of  its  force.  Sometimes  the  dicta  contained  in  the  opinion  will 
be  of  weight  because  of  the  learning  and  ability  of  the  judge 
by  whom  the  opinion  was  written;  but  even  in  such  a  case  they 
are  not  part  of  the  decision  of  the  court.'  What  is  said  by  the 
judge  in  the  course  of  the  opinion  must  be  confined  to  the  facts 
presented  by  the  case  in  which  the  opinion  was  delivered,^  and 
it  is  always  important  to  carefully  ascertain  the  points  of  agree- 
ment, and  discriminate  the  points  of  difference  between  the 
reported  case  and  the  one  under  examination.  The  greater  the 
number  of  decisions  that  sustain  a  proposition  the  more  cer- 
tain the  conclusion  that  it  was  correctly  decided,  for  these  are 
instances  of  the  concurrent  judgments  of  men  learned  in  the 
law;  but  it  is  not  always  safe  to  assume  as  true  a  proposition 
sustained  by  a  long  line  of  cases,  for  close  investigation  may 
lead,  as  has  not  infrequently  happened,  to  the  discovery  that 
the  entire  line  of  cases  rests  upon  a  single  ill-considered  and 
wrongly  decided  case,  and  that,  consequently,  all  the  cases  must 
be  overthrown.  Where  the  cases,  like  the  Swiss  troops,  fight 
on  both  sides,  then  the  investigator  must  select  such  cases  as 
seem  founded  on  solid  principles,  and  lead  to  good  results.  It 
is,  however,  often  very  ditlicult  to  tell  which  of  two  lines  of 
conflicting  cases  should  be  followed,  and  the  only  safe  course 
is  to  find  some  general  principle  that  will  serve  as  a  standard 
by  which  to  test  the  cases  opposed  to  the  views  of  the  investi- 
gator.    This  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  do,  for,  it  is  said,  "the 

>Rohrback   v.  Germania  Fire  Ins.        "Cohens    v.    State    of    Virginia,    6 
Co.,  62  N.  Y.  47,  58;  Frantz  v.  Brown,     Wlieat.  (U.  S.)  399;  Carroll  v.  Lessee, 
17  Serg.  Sc  R.  (Pa.)  287,  292;  Bates  v.     16  How.  (U.  S.)  275,  286. 
Taylor,  87  Tenn.  319;  Wixson  v.  De- 
yine,  80  Cal.  385. 
4 


50  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  65 

comparative  weight  or  credit  of  authorities  where  they  conflict 
is  a  matter  of  professional  science  which  is  not  regulated  by 
any  determinate  rule." 

§  65.  How  a  decision  should  be  considered. — A  decision 
must,  as  we  have  said,  be  considered  with  reference  to  the 
facts  out  of  which  the  questions  of  law  arose. ^  It  was  said  by 
Lord  Manners  that  "  It  is  always  unsatisfactory  to  abstract  the 
reasoning  of  the  court  from  the  facts  to  which  that  reasoning 
is  meant  to  apply.  It  has  a  tendency  to  misrepresent  one  judge 
and  mislead  another.  "^  The  tendency  of  the  reasoning  of  the 
court  considered  apart  from  the  facts  to  mislead,  is  one  rea- 
son why  it  is  unsafe  to  rely  upon  the  text-books,  for  they  often 
assert  as  a  rule  what  the  court  states  as  an  argument.  The 
danger  of  being  misled  is  much  greater  to  the  advocate  engaged 
in  the  investigation  or  argument  of  a  cause  than  to  a  judge 
who  hears  both  sides  of  the  question  discussed.  The  only  se- 
curity for  the  advocate  is  in  a  careful  analysis  of  the  facts  and 
a  close  comparison  of  the  legal  doctrines  declared  with  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  law.  It  is  not  an  unfrequent  occurrence 
for  an  advocate  who  has  not  given  the  cases  relied  upon  by  him 
a  thoughtful  study  to  be  humiliated  by  having  them  turned 
against  him.  The  reports  contain  many  instances  where,  even 
on  appeal,  cases  have  been  cited  which  have  furnished  weapons 
to  the  enemy.  It  often  happens  that  cases  are  decided  on  par- 
ticular circumstances,  and  such  decisions  can  only  be  relied  on 
where  the  circumstances  in  the  reported  case  and  in  the  one 
under  investigation  are  the  same.  It  is  seldom  prudent  to 
build  on  cases  of  this  character,  for  they  are  seldom  well  de- 
cided. They  are,  indeed,  more  frequently  so  narrow  as  not  to 
be  entitled  to  any  rank,  even  the  lowest,  as  authoritative  prec- 
edents. 

§  66.   Considerations  which  affect  weight  of  decisions.— 

Various  elements  enter  into  a  consi.deration  of  the  question  of 
the  weight  to  be  assigned  a  judicial  decision.     A  well  reasoned 

»  See  §  64,  ante.  "  Revell  v.  Hussey,  2  Ball  &  Batty, 

28Go 


§  67  THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  51 

and  carefully  considered  case  is  entitled  to  more  weight  than 
one  not  well  supported  by  reason  and  not  thoroughly  consid- 
ered.^ Mr.  Bishop  seems  to  take  ground  against  any  reasoning 
by  the  judges  in  (heir  opinions,  but  we  can  not  concur  in  his 
view.  The  reasoning,  if  sound  and  strong,  brings  strength 
and  respect;  if  weak  and  inconclusive,  leads  to  the  detection 
of  fallacies  and  errors,  and,  ultimately,  to  the  final  overthrow 
of  tlio  case.  Tlic  point  of  view  whicli  Mr.  Bishop  occupies  is 
that  of  a  text-writer,  and  his  judgment  seems  somewhat  warped 
by  his  adherence  to  his  peculiar  notions  of  the  authority  of 
text-books.  An  opinion  concurred  in  by  all  the  judges  com- 
posing the  court  is  generally,  but  not  always,  of  more  weight 
than  one  delivered  by  a  divided  court.  The  dissenting  opinion 
of  a  great  judge  will  sometimes  command  higher  respect  than 
that  of  his  associates,  but  the  decision  of  the  majority  is  alone 
authoritative.^ 


§  67.   Judicial  decisions  not  the  law  itself — When  authority. 

— Judicial  decisions  are  not,  in  a  strict  sense,  authority,  except 
in  the  jurisdiction  where  they  are  pronounced.  The  text- writers, 
and  the  courts  generally,  speak  of  these  decisions  as  authority, 
but  beyond  the  court's  jurisdiction  they  have  force  only  as  ar- 
guments. They  are  not  authority  in  the  sense  of  having  the 
force  of  absolute  law,  even  in  the  jurisdiction  where  the  court 
pronouncing  tliem  is  the  highest  judicial  tribunal.-^  They  may 
be  overruled,  and  they  will  be  overruled  if  clearly  opposed  to 


^  But  it  is  said  that  a  per  c?<nffl?ji  opin-  Book  of  the  Law,  Book  IV,  Chapter 

ion  is  one  where  the  court  are  all  of  xxiii ;     Heard's    Criminal    Pleading, 

one  mind,  and  the  case  is  so  clear  as  Chapter  i. 

not  to  need  an  extended  discussion, and  '  They  are  only  evidence  of  what  the 

that  it  has  the  same  weight  as  any  law  is.     Swift  r.  Tyson,   16  Pet.   (U. 

other  opinion.   Clarke  r.  Western  As-  S.)   18,  Per  Story,  J.;    New  Orleans 

surance  Co.,  14(>  Pa.  St.  561,  S.  C.  28  Water-Works  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Sugar, 

Am.  St.  Rep.  821.  etc.,  Co.,  125  U.  S.  18,  S.  C.  8  Sap. 

*  For  a  discussion  of  this  interesting  Ct.  Rep.  741.    See,  also,  Wixson  v.  De- 
subject  read  Chapters  xii  to  xix,  Ram  vine,  80  Cal.  385. 
on  Legal  Judgments ;    Bishop's  First 


52  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  68 

principle/  although  courts  are  always  reluctant  to  change  their 
decisions. 

§  68.  Obtainino:  principles — Analogical  reasoning. — Prin- 
ciples for  the  government  of  particular  cases  are  in  many  in- 
stances obtained  by  a  process  of  analogical  reasoning.  The 
resemblance  between  the  cases  must  be  both  in  the  facts  and  in 
the  law.  "The  argument  from  analogy  is  forcible  only  when 
the  resemblance  is  close;  if  there  are  marked  points  of  differ- 
ence between  the  conclusion  deduced  and  the  examples  taken 
as  leading  by  analogy  to  it,  the  argument  fails.  '^  In  logical 
language,  the  marks  of  the  cases  taken  as  examples  and  the 
marks  of  the  case  for  which  a  governing  principle  is  sought 
must  be  the  same  in  essence.  It  is  not,  however,  always  neces- 
sary that  the  forms  of  the  marks  be  the  same,  but  in  essence 
they  should  be  as  nearly  identical  as  possible.  The  closer  the 
resemblance  the  stronger  the  argument.  Forcible  as  the  argu- 
ment from  analogy  often  is,  yet  it  is  nevertheless  often  a  source 
of  error,  not  only  in  open  discussion,  but  also  in  the  investi- 
gation made  in  private.  "There  is  no  greater  fallacy,"  says 
a  learned  judge,  "than  that  of  carrying  an  analogy  too  far, 
and  supposing  that,  because  there  is  a  resemblance  between 
two  things  in  one  point,  they  therefore  correspond  in  every  re- 
spect."'^ A  general  likeness  may  exist  between  many  cases, 
and  yet  upon  one  point  the  difference  may  be  so  great  as  to 
completely  destroy  the  analogy.  The  analogue  upon  which  the 
reasoner  bases  his  mental  process  requires  examination  from 
every  side,  so  that  its  points,  or  marks,  may  take  a  prominent 
place  in  the  mind,  and  not  have  a  place  as  an  indistinct  image 
perceived  only  in  shadowy  outlines.  The  mental  image  of  the 
analogue,  and  that  of  the  case  for  which  it  is  supposed  to  sup- 
ply a  rule,  should  take  their  places  in  the  mind  side  by  side  so 
clearly  that  the  comparison  which  the  mind  makes  may  bring 
fully  into  light  every  mark  or  point.     No  other  course  will  en- 

1  Paul  V.  Davis,  100  Ind.  422 ;  Rum-  »  Goodwin  v.  State,  96  Ind.  550(573) . 
sey  T7.  N.  Y.  &  N.  E.  Ry.  Co.,  133  N.  »  Lord  Chancellor  Cresswell  in 
Y.  79,  S.  C.  28  Am.  St.  Rep.  600.  Keats  v.  Keats,  32  Law  Times,  321. 


§  69  THE    LAW    OF    TlIK    CASE.  53 

able  the  solitary  reasoner  to  escape  error,  nor  will  any  other 
course  put  it  in  his  power  to  convey  his  judgment  to  another 
mind  with  clearness  and  strength. 

§  69.  How  to  search  text-books — Tables  of  eases. — The  short- 
est and  the  safest  method  of  searching  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
text-writers  upon  any  particular  subject  is  to  look  through  the 
table  of  cases  and  find  where  a  leading  case  is  discussed.  It 
is  not  always  easy  to  determine  under  what  head  a  particular 
principle  which  it  is  desired  to  examine  should  be  indexed, 
and  it  is  often  difficult,  and  sometimes  impossible,  to  discover 
what  one  is  in  search  of  in  the  index.  The  work  of  hunting 
through  an  index  is  frequently  a  perplexing  and  unsatisfac- 
tory one;  if,  however,  the  title  of  a  leading  case  is  known,  it  is 
short  and  easy  work  to  find  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine 
which  it  declares.  But  there  is  another  important  reason  for 
acquiring  and  retaining  the  names  of  cases,  and  that  is,  it  en- 
ables the  investigator  to  run  through  the  citation  of  cases  in 
the  reports,  digests  or  tables,  and  ascertain  whether  the  case 
has  been  denied,  distinguished,  criticised,  or  approved.  A 
case  that  has  not  been  firmly  rooted  in  the  law  should  not  be 
relied  on  without  examining  the  table  of  cases  cited,  to  ascer- 
tain whether  it  has  or  has  not  been  subsequently  approved, 
denied,  or  distinguished.  By  reading  the  comments  of  the 
text-writers  and  judges  upon  a  decided  case  a  clear  and  dis- 
tinct perception  of  its  force  is  obtained,  and  a  ready  and  forci- 
ble application  of  its  doctrines  can  be  made.  So,  too,  the  ex- 
amination of  subsequent  discussions  often  furnishes  important 
hints  as  to  the  proper  limitations  of  the  general  doctrine,  and 
furnishes,  also,  suggestions  as  to  the  change  which  a  differ- 
ence in  the  facts  would  produce.  It  is,  therefore,  prudent  to 
carefully  follow  such  a  case  in  its  course  through  the  text- 
books and  reports.  The  tables  of  cases,  or  the  books  contain- 
ing citations  of  cases,  will  show  whether  the  case  has  been 
approved,  limited,  distinguished,  or  overruled,  and  a  study  of 
the  comments  upon  it  will  bring  all  its  points  strongly  and 
clearly  into  view.     The  doctrines  of  many  cases  have  been  ex- 


54  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  70 

tended  because  wise  and  salutary;  the  doctrines  of  others 
limited  because  not  meriting  extension;  cases  have  been  dis- 
criminated because,  while  apparently  alike,  in  reality  they 
were  different;  and  others  have  been  overruled  because  they 
were  wrong  in  principle.  The  reasoning  of  the  courts  in  all 
these  instances  is  valuable,  because  it  lights  up  many  dark 
places,  and  brings  into  view  obscure  points. 

§  70.   ESect  of  increase  in  number  of  reported  cases.— The 

immense  number  of  reported  cases  has  not,  as  some  suppose, 
diminished  the  work  of  the  lawyer  or  rendered  it  less  import- 
ant for  him  to  think  for  himself.  On  the  contrary,  the  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  decisions  has  made  it  all  the  more  im- 
portant that  he  should  work  out  all  legal  propositions  in  his 
own  mind.  It  can  not  with  safety  be  assumed  that  any  case, 
or  the  doctrine  of  any  text-writer,  can  be  taken  as  a  precedent. 
Among  so  many  thousand  cases  there  must  be  collision  and 
conflict,  and  from  this  conflict  new  and  juster  views  emerge. 
The  wealth  of  argument  and  illustration  found  in  the  decisions 
of  the  courts  is  very  great,  and  in  cases  of  conflict  it  often  re- 
quires a  long  continued  study  and  keen  mental  vision  to  de- 
cide which  ' '  hath  the  better  reason. ' '  It  is  by  no  means  every 
case  or  every  statement  of  a  text-writer  that  can  be  elevated  to 
the  dignity  of  a  precedent,  and  the  lawyer  must  determine  for 
himself  to  what  rank  the  decision  of  the  court  or  the  doctrine 
of  the  writer  shall  be  assigned.  It  is  said  that  the  great  num- 
ber of  decisions  "tends  to  reduce  the  value  of  any  one  decision 
as  a  fixed  element  in  jurisprudence,"  and  there  is  much  of 
truth,  but  yet  something  of  error,  in  the  observation.  It  is 
true  that  the  great  number  of  decisions  brings  into  the  fields  of 
legal  comtemplation  new  arguments  and  elements;  but  while 
these  may  weaken  the  value  of  cases  not  founded  on  solid 
principle,  they  make  more  prominent  those  that  are,  and  add 
to  their  strength.  But  the  increase  in  the  number  of  decisions 
makes  it  more  difficult  to  determine  what  shall  be  considered 
precedents,  and  casts  the  lawyer  upon  his  own  mental  re- 
sources.    There  is  much  truth  in  the  observations  of    a  recent 


§  71  TUE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  55 

writer  who  says:  "There  never  was  a  time  when  an  ignorant 
and  ill-road  lawyer  was  so  hard  put  to  it  t(j  find  on  any  con- 
trovcrtil)le  point  a  safe  authority  on  which  he  could  safely  rest. 
But  on  the  other  hand  it  has  never  heen  so  easy  for  an  intelli- 
gent and  well-read  lawyer  to  master  any  controvertible  ques- 
tion and  prepare  to  maintain  himself  with  sound  reasoning 
and  acute  and  })i-opci'  distinctions.  The  force  of  the  lawyer, 
which  used  to  rest  to  a  considerable  extent  on  oratory  with  the 
jury  and  a  book  with  the  judge,  now  rests  rather  on  hard  facts 
with  the  jury  and  close  logic  with  the  judge.  This,  much  as 
those  accustomed  to  old  processes  may  regret  it,  and  painful  as 
may  be  the  effort  of  some  to  adapt  themselves  to  it,  is  a  whole- 
some change.  It  enchances  the  value  of  the  mental  force  of 
counsel,  gives  more  influence  to  liis  actual  knowledge  of  the 
law  as  distinguished  from  his  memory  of  what  is  in  the  books, 
and  compels  competition  in  reasoning,  which  thus  becomes  the 
life  of  the  bar."^  It  is,  perhaps,  true,  as  the  writer  asserts, 
that  the  increase  in  the  number  of  decisions  has  rendered  the 
possession  and  use  of  mental  force  more  necessary;  but  the 
lives  of  the  successful  advocates  prove  that  they  have  always 
relied  less  on  cases  than  on  principles  deduced  by  their  own 
thoughts  from  books  and  cases.  The  chief  object  of  the  study 
of  cases  has,  with  really  strong  men,  ever  been  to  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  jurisprudence,  and  to  put  it  in 
form  for  use.^ 

§  71.  Generalization  of  cases. — Austin  well  says:  "If  our 
experience  and  observation  of  particulars  were  not  generalized, 
our  experience  and  observation  of  particulars  would  seldom 
avail  us  in  practice.  To  review  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion  a 
host  of  particulars,  and  to  obtain  from  those  particulars  a  con- 
clusion applicable  to  the  case,  were  a  process  too  slow  and  un- 
certain to  meet  the  exigencies  of  our  lives.  The  inferences 
suggested  to  our  minds  by  repeated  observation  and  experience 
are,  therefore,  drawn  into  principles  or  compressed  into  max- 
ims.    These  we  carry  about  us  ready  for  use,  and  apply  to  in- 

*  22  Central  Law  Joiinial,  2G4.  '  See  39  Albany  Law  Journal,  120. 


56  THE    \YORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  72 

dividual  cases  promptl}^  or  without  hesitation,  without  revert- 
ing to  the  process  by  which  they  were  obtained,  or  without  re- 
calling or  arraying  before  our  minds  the  numerous  and  intricate 
considerations  of  which  they  are  handy  abridgments."^ 

§  72.  Case  lawyers. — Lord  Abinger,  an  acute  observer,  says: 
"I  may  observe,  what  a  long  course  of  experience  has  taught 
me,  that  the  lawyers  least  to  be  depended  upon  are  those  who 
are  in  constant  pursuit  of  cases  in  point  to  govern  their  judg- 
ment, and  who,  therefore,  seldom  have  sufficient  knowledge  of 
principles  to  judge  for  themselves."^  A  man  who  depends 
upon  his  memory  of  cases  can  not  successfully  make  his  way 
through  a  contest  where  the  real  test  of  superiority  is  not  so 
much  what  a  man  has  in  memory  as  what  he  can  do  with  what 
he  has.  A  mechanic  may  have  in  his  shop  a  great  number  of 
the  best  tools  in  the  world,  but  if  he  has  not  the  skill  to  use 
them  they  are  of  little  benefit  to  him;  and  so  with  the  lawyer. 
He  may  have  in  memory  many  cases,  but  if  he  has  not  the  skill 
to  use  them  they  are  of  no  benefit  to  him. 

§  73.  Exceptions  to  general  rules. — There  are  very  few  gen- 
eral rules  to  which  there  are  no  exceptions,  and  the  exceptions 
are  sometimes  as  important  as  the  general  rules  themselves.^ 
Close  analysis  and  keen  discrimination  are  required  to  discover 
under  what  principle  a  case  rightly  falls.  Whether  a  case  falls 
under  a  general  rule  or  under  some  exception  to  the  rule  can 
not  always  be  determined  by  a  mere  reference  to  books,  but 
the  mental  problem  is  one  that  must  be  worked  out  in  the  mind 
of  the  lawyer.  Legal  knowledge  that  will  avail  in  the  actual 
contests  of  the  forum  must  be  something  more  than  rules  com- 
mitted to  memory  and  precedents  conveniently  arranged  for 
reference,  for  real  legal  knowledge  is  the  product  of  the  thinker's 
own  mind.  Locke  wisely  says:  "Reading  furnishes  the  mind 
only  with  materials  of  knowledge;  it  is  thinking  makes  what 
we  read  ours.     We  are  of  the  ruminating  kind,  and  it  is  not 

M  Austin's  Jurispnidence,  118.  '"There  is   no  rule  but  what  may 

2  Memoir  of  Lord  xVbinger,  45.  fail."     Plowden's  Com.  162. 


§  74  THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  57 

enough  that  we  cram  ourselves  with  a  great  load  of  collections; 
unless  we  chew  them  over  again,  they  will  not  give  us  strength 
and  nourishment."^  The  knowledge  of  the  lawyer  will  be  of 
little  use  to  liim  unless  it  can  be  made  available  at  command, 
for  he  must  use  it,  not  in  the  quiet  of  the  study,  but  in  the 
bustle  and  excitement  of  the  forum.  However  richly  his  mem- 
ory may  be  stored  with  lulcs  ami  precedents,  he  will  be  poor 
indeed  if  his  resources  can  not  be  called  into  use  at  a  moment's 
warning.  No  profession  requires  a  wider  knowledge  than  that 
of  tlie  advocate,  and  there  is  none  which  requires  a  more  de- 
cisive and  prompt  use  of  knowledge  laid  up  in  the  mind.  With 
him  knowledge  is  "to  be  regarded,  not  as  a  pure  reception  and 
reflection,  but  as  an  inner  activity.  "^  Clear  and  distinct  ideas 
of  the  principles  should  be  secured  and  arranged  under  proper 
names,  for  names  enable^  us  to  so  keep  what  we  acquire  as  to 
reach  it  at  call.  As  Locke  says:  ''The  sure  and  only  way  to 
get  true  knowledge  is  to  form  in  our  minds  clear,  settled  no- 
tions of  things,  with  names  annexed  to  those  determined 
ideas.  "^ 

§  74.  Discrimination. — No  one  can  be  a  great  lawyer  uniess 
he  possesses  keen  discrimination.^  Where  the  i)ower  of  dis- 
crimination is  wanting,  a  blurred  and  indistinct  impression  is 
produced  upon  the  mind.     Such  a  mental  image  is  much  like 

1  Conduct  of  the  Understanding,  63.  *  A  keen  discrimination  is  essential 
"Is  Studio  a  learned  man,  I  make  a  to  prevent  the  useless  overloading  of  a 
distinction.  Studio,  has,  to  be  sure,  theory  witli  matters  of  huv  or  of  fact 
acquired  a  certain  science,  but  of  pro-  which  obstruct  the  strong  and  appro- 
found  science,  science  which  is  broad  priate  movement  of  the  trial.  Advo- 
and  lofty,  good  and  true  science,  he  cates  lacking  the  faculty  of  discrim- 
has  none.  Studio  reads  night  and  ination  often  encumber  their  case  to 
day,  but  all  that  goes  into  his  head  is  its  great  liarm,  forgetting  Bacon's  say- 
spoiled  there,  like  a  liquid  in  a  ing,  that  "  If  a  man  maketh  his  train 
wretdied  cask.  A  troubled  brain,  an  longer  he  makes  his  wings  shorter." 
adulterated  judgment,  an  unlucky  Like  the  White  Knigiit  in  the  fairy 
memory,— that  is  Studio."  ISIedita-  tale,he  cumbereth  himself  with  mouse- 
tions  of  a  Parish  Priest,  oG.  traps,  bee-hives  and  such  useless  im- 

*  Fundamental   Concepts,  Professor  pediments, and, in  consequence, moves, 

Eueken,  KJ.  when  he  moves  at  all,  with  broken  and 

^  Conduct  of  the  Understanding,  57.  halting  steps. 


58  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  74 

that  taken  by  a  blundering  photographer;  it  is  little  else  than 
a  mere  blot,  having  neither  features  nor  expression.     "There 
is  nothing, ' '  says  a  philosophic  writer,  ' '  that  is  more  character- 
istic of  the  higher  intellect  as  contrasted  with  the  lower  than 
its  greater  power  of  discriminating,  i.  e.,  of  seeing  points  of 
difference.     It  is  differentiation  that  is  always  the  law  of  prog- 
ress.    Knowledge    begins    as  a  vague  blur,  which    gradually 
becomes  distinct.     Everywhere  the  specialist's  eye  sees  finer 
shades  of  difference  than  are  visible  to  the  public,  as  the  shep- 
herd knows  his  sheep.     It  is  incapacity  for  seeing  difference 
that  lies  at  the  root  of  all  crude,  ill-considered  generalization, 
and  therefore  at  the  root  of  the  mental  '  narrowness'  (as  it  is 
usually  called )  which  is  ever  ready  to  accept  a  principle  unduly 
simple  and  wide  in  its  asserted  sweep,  and  therefore  unduly 
rigid  in  its  actual  application.  "^     Mr.  Bain  thus  expresses  the 
same  general  thought:     "Our  knowledge  of  a  fact  is  the  dis- 
crimination of  it  from  differing  facts,  and  the  agreement  or 
identification  of  it  with  agreeing  facts.  "^     It  is,  in  truth,  im- 
possible to  secure  a  clear  and  distinct  idea  of  a  physical  thing, 
unless  by  a  process  of  discrimination  we  separate  it  from  things 
that  resemble  it;  thus,  it  is  very  difficult  to  obtain  an  accurate 
mental  image  of  a  face  seen  in  a  great  crowd ,  and  it  can  only 
be  done  by  carefully  discriminating  the  difference  between  the 
face  sought  to  be  impressed  upon  the  mind  and  the  other  faces 
in  the  throng.    It  is  much  more  difficult  to  separate  resembling 
principles  than  to  separate  resembling  physical  things,  for  in 
the  case  of  physical  things  we  have  assistance  from  the  organs 
of  sensation,  but  in  the  case  of  abstract  principles  it  is  purely 
mental  work.     One  who  looks  into  the  table  of  cases  in  any  of 
our  digests  will  be  struck  with  the  number  of  "cases  distin- 
guished."    In  many  instances  the  cases  supply  examples  of 
keen  discrimination  and  close  analysis,  although  it  must  be 
owned  that  in  many  other  instances  the  attempt  to  "distin- 
guish "  is  a  mere  pretext  to  avoid  overruling  in  direct  terms  a 
decision  which  is  felt  to  be  erroneous,  but  which  a  mistaken 

'  Fallacies,  Alfred  Sidgwick,  2.56.  '  Logic,  4. 


§  75  THK    LAW    OF    THE    CASK.  59 

notion  of  consistency  deters  the  court  from  boldly  overthrow- 
ing. 

§  75.  Contention  is  nsnally  as  to  applicability  of  orenoral 
rule. — The  conti'iitioii  ialls  more  frci^uently  upon  the  (pie.stion 
whether  the  general  rule  invoked  applies  to  the  particular  case 
than  upon  the  question  as  to  the  existence  of  the  rule  itself.^ 
Few  expressions  are  more  often  heard  in  the  court-room  than, 
"I  admit  the  law,  but  deny  its  applicability  to  the  case  in 
hand."  There  is,  as  we  have  already  said,  much  loss  difficulty 
in  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  general  rules  than  in  giving  them 
just  practical  application.^  No  matter  how  well  stored  the  ad- 
vocate's mind  may  be  with  principles,  he  will  not  attain  great 
eminence  nor  win  success  unless  he  can  discriminate  differ- 
ences and  agreements,  and  accurately  decide  whether  the  par- 
ticular case  falls  within  the  general  principle  upon  which  he 
plants  his  case,  or  within  that  invoked  against  him.  The  law  of 
contracts,  for  instance,  is  quite  well  settled  and  understood,  yet 
there  is  constant  strife  as  to  the  practical  application  to  be  made 
of  that  law.  So,  too,  the  general  principles  of  the  law  of  wills 
are  settled,  yet  controversies  concerning  their  application  are 
endless.  An  advocate  is  not  well  equipped  who  knows  general 
rules  but  has  not  been  trained  to  appl}'  them.  One  may  have 
the  bow  of  Ulysses,  but  it  will  not  be  a  formidable  weapon  un- 
less he  can  bend  it.  New  cases  constantly  arise  which  no  set- 
tled rule  of  law  will  precisely  fit.  One  who  should  expect  a 
single  rule  of  law  to  fit  all  cases  of  the  same  general  nature 
would  be  as  unwise  as  a  tailor  who  should  attempt  to  make  all 
suits  cut  in  a  particular  pattern  fit  all  men  of  a  particular  race 
or  class.  The  reason  why  new  cases  arise  is  cleverly  given  by 
DeQuincey  in  his  essay  on  Casuistry.  It  is  true,  as  he  says, 
"  that  new  cases  are  forever  arising  to  raise  new  doubts  whether 
they  do  or  do  not  fall  under  the  rule  of  law." 

*  See,  for  instance,  Irvine  r.  Leyh,  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  130  Ind.  1,  4,  5; 

102   Mo.  200,  209;    Dunlap  v.  Steere,  Anderson  v.  Anderson,  129  Ind.  573, 

(Cal.)  16  L.  R.  A.  361,  363;  Frank  v.  S.  C.  28  Am.  St.  Rep.  211,  212. 
Traylor,  (Ind.)  16  L.  R.  A.  115,  119;        «  Mills'  Logic,  208. 
City  of  Noblesville  v.  Lake  Erie  and 


60  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  76 

§  76.    Law  periodicals — Leadino:  articles. — Writers  of  lead- 
ing articles  in  the  law  periodicals  are,   for  the  time,  at  least, 
and  in  a  limited  sense,  specialists  discussing  particular  sub- 
jects with  a  well  defined  object  in  view.     If  they  do  their  duty 
well,    they    will    discuss  the    particular  topic  better  than    an 
author  of  even  more  ability  writing  upon  a  general  subject. 
Their  mental  power  is  concentrated,  and  they  see  more  clearly 
the  lights  and  shades,  the  agreements  and  the  differences,  than 
one  who  takes  a  broad  view  of  even  one  branch  of  jurisprudence. 
For  this  reason  a  greater  benefit  from  the  study  of  these  articles 
may  be  derived  than  can  usually  be  gained  from  the  study  of 
the  text-books.     What  has  been  said  can  not,  of  course,  apply 
in  its  full  force  to  articles  which  string  together  upon  a  slight 
thread  of  thought  the  conclusions  of    text-writers  and  judges; 
but,  even  from  leading  articles  of  this  class,  assistance  may 
often  be  obtained.     The  criticisms  of    cases  found  in  our  law 
periodicals,  although  not  always  just,  are  sources  from  which 
valuable  knowledge  may  be  acquired.    When,  as  often  happens, 
an  error  is  pointed  out,  it  is  done  so  clearly  and  so  strongly 
that  the  converse  of  the  rule  adopted  by  the  judge  is  so  dis- 
tinctly perceived  that  there  is  little  room  for  mistake.     On  the 
other  hand,  when  it  happens,  as  very  often  it  does,  that  the 
critic  is  wrong,  the  right  appears  in  all  the  stronger  light,   so 
that  no  great  mental  vigor  is  required  to  attain  the  true  knowl- 
edge.    But  not  alone  for  these  reasons  should  the  advocate  look 
to  the  magazines,  for  he  will  often  find  in  them  suggestions 
that  will  lead  to  a  train  of  thought  which  will  clear  away  doubt 
and  perplexity,  and  light  up  more  than  one  dark  corner.      We 
are  not  now,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  remark,   referring  to  the 
mere  reading  of  the  magazines  as  they  come  from  the  press, 
for  that,  we  suppose,  will  be  done  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
in  line  with  the  current  legal  literature  and  decisions,  but  we 
are  speaking  of  occasions  when  the  advocate,  with  his  mind 
aroused  to  actual  work,   is  searching  for  tlie  law  of  his  case. 
More  lawyers  than  one,  veterans  in  experience  and  masters  in 
rank,  have  received  valuable  assistance  from  the  law  journals. 


§  77  THE    LAW    OF   THE    CASE.  Gl 

§  77.  Statutory  law. — Where  the  rule  of  law  which  governs 
the  case  is  found  in  the  statute,  then,  of  course,  reference  must 
be  made  to  tlie  statute;  but  even  when  the  rule  is  a  statutory 
one,  the  advocate's  duty  is  not  done  by  a  mere  reading  of  the 
statute.  The  work  of  construing  a  statute  is  often  a  very  diffi- 
cult and  perplexing  one,  for,  in  statutes,  as  elsewhere,  words 
are  often  uncertain,  and  (heir  meaning  difficult  to  deciplier. 
Bacon's  saying,  that,  "Though  we  think  we  govern  our  words, 
yet  certain  it  is  that  words,  as  a  Tartar's  bow,  do  shoot  back 
upon  the  understanding,  and  do  mightily  entangle  and  pervert 
the  judgment,"  is  true.  It  was  a  saying  of  Daniel  O'Connell 
that  "he  could  drive  a  coacli  and  six  through  almost  any  act 
of  Parliament."  Judge  Story  framed  a  statute  with  great  care, 
spending  six  months  upon  its  phraseology,  and  yet,  when  called 
upon,  within  less  than  a  year,  to  interpret  it,  he  was,  after 
hearing  two  able  lawyers  argue  the  question,  unable  to  give  it 
a  construction  entirely  satisfactory  even  to  himself. 

§  78.  Constnietion  of  statutes. — The  maxim  that  "  He  who 
considers  merely  the  letter  of  an  instrument  goes  but  skin  deep 
into  its  meaning,"  applies  quite  as  forcibly  to  statutes  as  to 
deeds,  contracts,  or  the  like.  Many  things  are  to  be  taken  into 
consideration — the  purpose  for  which  the  statute  was  enacted, 
the  evil  it  was  intended  to  remedy,  the  condition  of  the  law  at 
the  time,  the  common  law  upon  the  subject,  and  other  matters 
of  a  similar  nature.  Nor  is  a  statute  to  be  considered  as  an 
independent  rule  of  law,  but  it  is  to  be  taken  as  part  of  one 
great  system,  and  into  that  system  it  must  be  placed  with  as 
little  jarring  and  dislocation  of  parts  as  possible.^  The  Roman 
lawyer  wisely  said:  "To  know  the  law  is  not  to  understand 
its  words,  but  to  understand  its  import  and  purpose."^ 
Hobbes  says,  that  "All  laws,  written  and  unwritten,  have  need 

'BishopWrittenLaws,  §242/;;  Hum-  "as  the  unlettered  use  written  words,- 

phries  v.  Davis,  100  Ind.  274.  or  as  cattle  use  appearances,  for  the 

'Another  thinker  says  of  tliose  who  use   is  one  thing  and  understanding 

content  themselves   with    superficial  another." 
knowledge  for  mere  use  tliat  they  act 


62  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  79 

of  interpretation,"  and  he  acutely  marks  the  difficulties  of  cor- 
rectly' interpreting  written  laws.^ 

§  79.  3Iakiiig  law  of  the  ease  available. — To  be  available  the 
law  of  the  case  should  be  condensed  into  com23act  mental  judg- 
ments, and  in  that  form  woven  into  the  mind,  and  not  simply- 
stored  up  in  memory.  Principles  constitute  the  law;  and,  as 
Mr.  Bishop  strongly  says,  "The  real  distinction  between  a 
great  lawyer  and  a  small  one  is  that  the  great  lawyer  looks  be- 
yond the  cases  as  they  apjiear  on  the  surface  of  the  reports  to 
the  law  of  the  cases;  looks,  in  other  words,  beyond  the  cases 
into  the  law  precisely  as,  in  the  mechanic  arts,  the  great  oper- 
ator looks  beyond  the  mere  motions  which  he  sees  going  on  in 
the  machinery  into  those  mechanical  laws  by  which  the  mo- 
tions are  controlled,  and  thus  understands  how  to  do  the  new 
things  which  the  demands  of  his  calling  present  to  his  atten- 
tion."^ But  we  are  not  now  so  much  concerned  with  what 
constitutes  the  law  as  with  the  method  of  preparing  it  for  use 
in  the  actual  contest.  Pressing  Mr.  Bishop's  illustration  into 
further  use,  we  add  that  the  master  mechanic  binds  into  prin- 
ciples the  mechanical  laws,  and  is  thus  enabled  to  remember 
and  use  them  when  occasion  requires. 

§  80.  Referring  to  general  principles. — The  advice  which 
the  attorney-general  gave  to  Mr.  Aubrey  is  sound  and  judici- 
ous: "Always  have  an  eye  to  principles."  Warren  repre- 
sents his  attorney-general  as  saying:  ' '  Referring  everything  to 
it,  resolve  thoroughly  to  understand  the  smallest  details;  and 
it  will  be  a  wonderful  assistance  in  fixing  them  for  practical 
use  in  your  mind  to  learn  as  much  as  you  can  of  the  reasons 
and  policy  m  which  they  originated."-^  Rufus  Choate  was 
careful  to  search  for  principles,  for  we  find  liim  saying  of  his 
own  method  of  study:  "  My  first  business  is  obviously  to  ap- 
prehend the  exact  point  of  each  new  case  which  I  study — to 

'  Leviathan,  Pt.  2,  Chapter,  xxvi.  Mho  does  not  do  his  best  to  find   a 

*1  Criminal    Procedure    (1    ed.),   §  jmnci pie  to  guide  him  in  every  case." 

1028.  London  Law  Times. 

^  "  No  lawyer  is  worthy  of  the  name 


§  81  THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE.  63 

apprehend  and  to  enunciate  it  precisely — neither  too  largely 
nor  too  narrowly — accurately,  justly.  This  necessarily  and  per- 
petually exercises  and  trains  the  niiiid,  and  }»rev('iits  inertness, 
dullness  of  edge.  This  done,  I  arrange  the  new  truth,  or  old 
truth,  or  whatever  it  be,  in  a  system  of  legal  arrangement,  for 
which  purpose  I  abide  by  Blackstone,  to  which  I  turn  daily, 
and  wliieh  I  seek  more  and  more  indelibly  to  impress  on  my 
memory.  Then  I  advance  to  the  question  of  the  law  of  the 
new  decision — its  conformity  with  standards  of  legal  truth,  with 
the  statute  it  interprets,  the  cases  on  which  it  reposes,  the 
principles  by  which  it  was  defended  by  the  court — the  law — 
the  question  of  whether  the  case  is  law  or  not.  This  leads  to 
a  history  of  the  point,  a  review  of  the  adjudications,  a  com- 
parison of  the  judgment  and  argument  with  the  criteria  of  legal 
truth."  1 

§  81.  Mind  must  act  quickly. — Dimly  outlined  conceptions 
scattered  through  the  mind  in  confusion  vv'ill  be  of  little  service, 
if,  indeed,  of  any  service  at  all,  on  the  trial.  The  virtues  of 
thought  in  deliberate  investigation  are,  doubtless,  as  Sir 
William  Hamilton  sa^'s,  "clear  thinking,  distinct  thinking, 
and  connected  tliinking;"^  but,  in  tlie  heat  of  the  contest, 
where  the  movements  must  be  made  quickly  and  unfalteringly, 
two  other  things  are  requisite — prompt  thinking  and  decisive 
thinking.  The  principles  of  law  must  flash  into  the  mind  with 
lightning-like  rapidity,  and  the  application  be  made  without 
an  instant's  hesitation.  There  is  no  time  to  turn  the  matter 
over  in  the  mind,  for  the  attention  must  not  wander  from  the 
witness.     It  is  a  far  cry  from  the  quiet  of  the  study  to  the  tur- 

•  Brown's  Life  of  Choate,  120.     The  tyrs,"  and  that  ink  runs  in  an  unmf- 

sentence  last  quoted  is  full  of  mean-  fled  current  through  the  rhannels  of 

ing.      The    mere   case    lawyer    cares  centuries.     The  masters  of  the  hiw  in 

nothing  for  the  history  of  a  principle,  former  times  studied  such  works  as 

and  text-writers  often  speak  only  of  "Coke  upon  Littleton,"  and  acquired 

the  value  of  modern  decisions,  forget-  a  knowledge  of  principles  by  going  to 

ting  that  decisions  are  only  evidence  the    fountain    head.     Truly,    "there 

of  principles.     "The  ink  of  science  is  were  giants  in  those  days." 

more  precious  than  the  blood  of  mar-  ^  Logic,  47. 


64  THE    WOKK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  82 

moil  of  the  trial. ^  Knowledge  that  will  do  well  in  the  one 
place  will  do  ill  in  the  other.  It  was  said  of  old:  "Your 
knowledge  of  many  things  does  not  give  you  reason  or  wis- 
dom."^ 

§  82.  Practical  use  of  knowledge. — This,  certainly,  is  true 
of  the  advocate:  He  must  have  knowledge,  and  be  able  to  make 
practical  use  of  it  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion.  It  is  said  of 
General  Grant  that  he  carefully  studied  a  map  of  the  country 
over  which  his  army  was  to  move  and  his  battles  to  be  fought, 
but  that  he  studied  it  once  only,  and  looked  at  it  never  again, 
for  the  first  study  fixed  it  in  his  mind.  It  is  this  faculty  of 
imbedding  matters  in  the  mind,  ready  for  instant  use,  that 
makes  great  soldiers  and  great  advocates.  This  is  best  done  by 
getting  the  things  into  the  mind  in  orderly  array.  Locke  says 
of  the  mind:  "  To  shorten  its  way  to  knowledge  and  make  each 
perception  more  comprehensible  it  binds  them  into  bundles." 
The  i)rocess  which  the  great  author  describes  is  the  only  one 
that  will  certainly  secure  knowledge  that  can  be  effectively  used 
when  occasion  demands.  Binding  the  propositions  of  law  into 
bundles  accomplishes  a  double  purpose — that  of  making  them 
thorouglily  known,  and  that  of  laying  them  up  Avhere  they  can 
be  made  available  without  effort.  These  mental  bundles  should 
contain  no  rubbish,  but  sliould  be  composed  of  principles 
wrought  out  by  previous  thought,  and  freed  from  unsound  or 
hurtful  doctrines.  These  propositions  should  be  not  merely 
things  remembered,  but  things  known.  This  is  the  knowledge 
that  gives  real  power,  and  makes  the  advocate  strong  when  in 
the  thick  of  the  fight  he  most  needs  strength.^     It  is  of  this 

*  As  Montaigne  saj's:     "Thepleatl-  gifted  James  T.   Brady  to  his    son, 

er's  bnsiness  compels  liim  to  enter  the  "  make  your  learning  practical,  for  a 

lists  upon  all  occasions,  and  the  ob-  bookworm  is  a  mere  driveler — a  gos- 

jections  and   replies   of    his  adverse  samer." 

party    often    jostle    him    out    of    his  ^  "  Dr.  Chalmers  used  to  say  that  in 

coui-se  and  \n\t  him  upon  the  instant  the  dynamics  of  human  affairs  two 

to  i)umi)  for  new  and  extempore  an-  tilings    are  essential    to    greatness — 

swers  and  defences."  power  and  ])romi)titude."  Dr.  Brown's 

*Heraclitus,  the  Ephesian.  "Spare  Hours." 

"James,"   said  the  father  of    the 


§  83  THK    LAW    OF    THK    CASE.  65 

that  conips  tliat  firm  resolution  wliicli  will  enable  the  advocate 
to  do  his  work  with  something  of  Luther's  spirit  when  he  said, 
"Here  I  take  my  stand." 

§  83.  Fixing:  legal  principles  in  memory. — "If,"  says  Du- 
gald  Stewart,  "we  wish  to  fix  the  particulars  of  our  knowledge 
in  our  memory,  the  most  effective  wa}'  of  doing  it  is  to  refer 
them  to  general  })rincii)les."  ^  This  doctrine  may  be  extended 
to  the  accpiisition  of  legal  projiositions  for  use  on  the  trial  of  a 
cause,  for,  by  laying  down  in  the  mind  a  general  principle,  or, 
if  there  are  many  different  phases  of  the  case,  a  series  of  gen- 
eral principles,  and  arranging  the  particular  propositions  under 
the  principle  governing  the  class  to  which  they  belong,  a  lirm 
grasp  is  obtained  of  the  law  of  the  case.  "Method  may  be 
called  in  general  the  art  of  disposing  well  of  a  series  of  many 
thoughts,  either  for  the  discovering  of  truth  when  we  are  ig- 
norant of  it,  or  for  proving  it  to  others."-  The  art  of  which 
Pascal  speaks  is  the  art  which  the  advocate  must  attain  if  he 
would  do  his  work  effectually,  for  without  it  he  can  neither  ac- 
quire nor  transmit  knowledge  otherwise  than  lamely  and  im- 
perfectly. The  advice  given  long  ago  is  as  valuable  now  as 
ever:  "Marshal  thy  notions  into  a  handsome  method.  One 
will  carry  twice  as  much  weight  trussed  and  packed  uj)  in  bun- 
dles than  when  it  lies  untoward,  flapping  and  hanging  about 
his  shoulders."  But  it  is  not  enough  for  the  advocate  to  carry 
his  weight  without  its  "  flapping  and  hanging  about  his  shoul- 
ders," for  he  must  carry  it  so  that  he  can  use  each  bundle  ef- 
fectively and  without  confusion  when  the  time  comes.  A  mis- 
placed bundle  may  work  almost  as  much  injury  as  the  misplaced 
leaf  in  the  book  of  fate.  "Method,"  says  j\Ir.  Lewis,  "  is  a 
path  of  transit. " '^  Whether  this  path  be  rugged  or  smooth, 
crooked  or  straight,  will  depend  upon  the  art  of  the  advocate. 

'  Stewart's  Elementsof  Phil.,  Chap,  thinker  says:    "  Every  practical  man, 

vi,  §  12.     Warren's  Law  Studies,  334.  whether  he  be  merchant,  mechanic, 

''Port  Royal  Logic,  308.  farmer  or  lawyer,  transmutes  his  ex- 

'  Histoiy      of      Philosophy,       718.  perience   with   intelhgence   until   his 

"Books,"   said   Bacon,    ''can    never  will  oiterates  witii  the  celerity  of  in- 

teach    the   use   of   books."     Another  stinrt."     One    who   can  not   use   his 

5 


66  TH1-:    WORK    Ol'T    OF    COURT.  §  84 

§  84.  The  kiiowledjio  needed  by  the  advocate. — ' '  There  is  no 
science,"  say.s  John  Stuai't  Mill,  ''which  will  enaljle  a  man  to 
bethink  him  of  what  will  suit  his  purpose."^  To  no  profession 
does  this  more  forcibly  apply  than  to  that  of  the  advocate.  He 
must  "bethink  him  "  of  what  will  suit  his  purpose,  and  when 
he  has  bethought  himself  of  this  he  must  "bethink  him"  how 
it  should  be  applied.  He  must  know  what  he  needs,  where  to 
find  it,  and  how  to  use  it  when  he  does  find  it.  Knowledge  of 
the  kind  attributed  to  the  clergymen  by  Mr.  Tulliver,  when  he 
said,  "My  notion  o'  the  parsons  was  as  they'd  got  a  sort  of 
learning  as  lay  mostly  out  o'  sight,"  will  do  the  advocate  very 
little  good.  The  learning  which  that  hard-headed  Englishman 
wanted  his  son  to  have  is  much  more  like  that  which  the  ad- 
vocate needs;  for  a  knowledge  "that  will  enable  him  to  see 
into  things  quick,  and  know  what  things  mean,  and  how  to 
wrap  things  up  in  words,  "''^  is  of  practical  value  to  one  whose 
contests  are  in  the  open  day,  about  real  things,  and  against 
hostile  forces.  Knowledge  not  simply  for  the  sake  of  knowl- 
edge but  for  actual  practical  use  is  the  knowledge  that  equips 
the  advocate  for  his  work.  "  Professional  skill,"  sa3^s  Philip 
Gilbert  Hammerton,  "is  knowledge  perfected  by  practical  ap- 
plication, and,  therefore,  has  a  great  intellectual  value.  Pro- 
fessional life  is  to  private  individuals  what  active  warfare  is  to 
a  military  state.  It  brings  to  light  every  deficiency  and  reveals 
our  truest  needs.  "'^  Professional  skill  involves  more  than  the 
knowledge  of  books  and  cases,  for  it  requires  that  knowledge 
with  the  added  requisite  of  power  to  use  it  effectively.*  With 
much  of  truth,  yet  not  without  something  of  error,  the  author 
we  have  quoted  says:  "I  may  observe  that,  to  be  truly  pro- 
fessional it  ought  to  be  always  at  command,  and,  therefore,  that 

leaniins;  is  in  much  tlie  same  situation  bar   practice  witliout  a   faculty  of  a 

that  Artemus  Ward  was  in  when  he  ready  utterance  of  it." 

said :  "  I  have  the  gift  of  oratory,  but  ^  Intellectual  Life,  408-411. 

I  haven't  got  it  with  me."  '"The    acquisition    of    intellectual 

•  Logic,  208.  power,"  it  has  been  said,  "  is  of  more 

*Mill  on  the  Floss,  23.     "All  the  importance    than    the    acquisition  of 

leaiTiing  in  the  world,"  says  Roger  knowledge." 
North,  "will  not  set  a  man  up  in  the 


§  85  THK    LAW    OK    TIIK    CASP:.  67 

the  average  power  of  the  man's  intellect,  not  his  rare  flashes 
of  higliest  inteUectual  ilhiminaiion,  ought  to  suffice  for  it. 
Professional  work  ought  always  to  be  plain  business;  work  re- 
quiring knowledge  and  skill,  Init  not  any  effort  of  genius."' 

§  85.  Business  work. — The  work  of  preparation,  whether 
done  in  gathering  the  facts  or  in  securing  the  law,  is  plain 
business  work;  but,  for  all  that,  it  requires  professional  skill 
of  a  high  order."'*  He  who  knows  how  to  do  that  work  knows 
a  great  deal.  "It  is  a  great  mistake,"  says  Judge  Bald- 
win, "to  suppose  that  a  lawyer's  strength  lies  chiefly  in  his 
tongue;  it  is  in  the  preparation  of  his  case,  in  knowing  what 
makes  the  case,  in  stating  the  case  accurately  in  the  papers, 
and  getting  out  and  getting  up  the  proofs.  It  re({uires  a  good 
lawyer  to  make  a  fine  argument,  but  he  is  a  better  lawyer  who 
saves  the  necessity  of  a  fine  argument,  and  prevents  the  pos- 
sibility of  his  adversary's  making  one."  '^ 

§  86.  Written  notes. — Written  notes  are  well  enough  if  not 
made  the  sole  repository  of  the  law.  There  is  a  better  place 
for  the  law  of  the  case  than  in  written  memorandums,  and  that 
place  is  the  mind  of  the  lawyer.  Reliance  on  what  is  written 
will  diminish  real  power.  Authorities,  however,  may  profita- 
bly be  noted  at  the  time  the  investigation  is  made,  but  the 
principles,  and  the  method  of  applying  them,  are  to  be  taken 
up  and  retained  in  the  mind.  Points  may  without  harm  be 
put  in  writing;  but  if  too  much  is  committed  to  writing,  too 
much  dependence  will  be  placed  upon  it,  and  the  mind  will 
not  work  with  the  requisite  energy  and  power.  Compact,  terse, 
concise  propositions,  full  enough  to  arouse  the  required  train 
of  thought,  and  enable  the  mind  to  reproduce  its  judgments, 
are  enough;  more  than  this  will,  in  most  cases,  do  harm.  Notes 
made  when  the  mind  is  warmed  to  its  work  are  freshest  and 

*  Intellectual  Life,  408-411.  ingon  to  trial."  LetterofN.  P.  Rogers, 

*It  is  said  of  Ezekiel  Webster  that  quoted  in  Harvey's  "Reminiscences 

"he  did  not  need  to  speak  much,  for  of  Webster,"  49. 

he  generally  put  his  cases  into  such  a  '  Flush  Times  in  Alabama,  245. 

shape  that  he  got  them  without  com- 


68  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  86 

strongest.  Promptness  will  give  them  efficacy;  delay  will  di- 
minish it.  The  method,  if  clear  at  the  first  will  be  clear  through- 
out. A  confused  method  at  the  outset  will  perplex  its  framer 
until  the  end.  Notes  methodically  made  and  orderly  arranged 
will  be  valuable,  but  notes  huddled  together  in  disorder  and 
confusion  will  be  worse  than  valueless.  A  method  settled  at 
the  start  and  adhered  to  throughout  will  give  a  clear,  strong,  dis- 
tinct, and  connected  thought.  The  prudent  and  skillful  worker 
will  lay  down  his  road  in  the  beginning,  survey  his  line,  and 
proceed  along  it  in  an  orderly  way;  but  the  careless  and  clumsy 
worker  will  begin  badly  and  slovenly,  and  the  further  he  goes 
the  greater  will  be  his  perplexity  and  bewilderment. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE. 


§  87.   Definite  theor}-  must  be  adopt-     §  111. 
ed. 

88.  Cases  lost  because  of  a  wrong        112. 

theory.  113. 

89.  Cases  gained  on  a  sound  theory. 

90.  Otiier  iihistrative  cases.  114. 

91.  Necessity  of  a  theory. 

92.  Contests  of  forum  likened  to        115. 

l)attles.  116. 

93.  Delinition  of  theory  of  the  case. 

94.  Different    uses    of    word        117. 

"theory."  118. 

95.  Meaning  of  word  "theory." 

96.  "Theory"   means   more  than        119. 

"hypothesis."  120. 

97.  Difference  between  theory  and        121. 

hypothesis.  122. 

98.  Hypothesis — Deduction. 

99.  Great  lawyers  skillful  in  con-        123. 

structing  hypotheses. 

100.  Hypothesis  must  be  probable.         124. 

101.  Fanciful  hypotheses.  125. 

102.  Definition  of  hypothesis — Com- 

mon use.  126. 

103.  Examples  of  hypotheses. 

104.  Value  of  hyi)otheses.  127. 

105.  Hypotheses  necessary  in  com-         128. 

municating  facts  and  ideas. 

106.  Use  of  imagination  in  forming        129. 

theory.  130. 

107.  Imagination    aids   in   forming        131. 

hypotheses.  132. 

108.  Effective  woi'k  of   advocate  in        133. 

construc-ting  hyi)otheses. 

lOit.    Working  hypotheses.  134. 

110.    Vcritication  of  provisional  hy- 
pothesis. 

(09) 


Importance  of  provisional  hy- 
pothesis in  investigating  law. 

Search  for  signs. 

Untenable  hypotheses  impair 
strength  of  theory. 

Improbable  hypotheses  impair 
force  of  theory. 

Arrangement  of  facts  in  theory. 

Theory  should  show  natural 
relation  of  facts. 

Subsidiary'  facts. 

Principal  facts  supported  by 
minor  facts. 

Theory  must  inspire  belief. 

How  to  secui-e  belief. 

Illustrative  theories. 

Consecjuences  to  which  theory 
leads  to  be  considered. 

Theory  should  be  consistent 
with  experience. 

Appeal  to  experience. 

Theory  should  be  clear  and 
logical. 

Matters  of  law  ami  matters  of 
fact  should  be  kept  separate. 

Presumptions. 

Use  and  avoidance  of  presump- 
tions. 

Presumptions  of  fact. 

Importance  of  j)resumptions. 

Defective  theories. 

Theory  should  be  invulnerable. 

Contests  of  forum  likened  to 
naval  engagements. 

Nature  of  work  in  constructing 
theory. 


70  THE  WORK  OUT  OF  COURT.  §  87 

§  135.   Preparation  and  arrangement  §  139.    Importance   of  verification   of 

of  details.  theory. 

136.  Verification  of  theorJ^  140.   Trial  court  theory  prevails  on 

137.  Fallacies  to  be  guarded  against.  appeal. 

138.  Inconsistent  hypotheses  to  be  141.   Limits  of  the  rule  that  trial 

avoided.  court  theories  continue  effec- 

tive on  appeal. 

§  87 .  Definite  theory  must  be  adopted. — ' '  First  of  all, "  says 
Quintilian,  "let  our  method  of  speaking  be  settled,  for  no 
journey  can  be  attempted  before  we  know  to  what  place  and  by 
Avhat  road  we  have  to  go;  "  and  so  it  may  be  said  of  preparing 
a  cause  for  trial  after  the  materials  have  been  secured,  first  of 
all  let  the  method  of  conducting  the  cause  be  settled,  for,  adopt- 
ing and  somewhat  expanding  Quintilian 's  illustration,  the  road 
through  the  courts  will  be  a  rough  one,  leading,  most  likely,  to 
misfortune  and  defeat,  unless  a  method  of  conducting  the  case 
be  settled  and  fixed  in  the  mind.^  The  first  step  can  not  be 
safely  taken  in  a  case  without  a  settled  and  certain  theory.  A 
case  must  be  put  to  trial  upon  a  definite  theory;  that  theory  the 
pleadings  must  outline,  the  evidence  sustain,  and  the  law 
support.  Not  only  is  it  necessary  to  frame  a  theory  to  secure 
a  knowledge  of  the  case,  but  it  is  indispensably  necessary  that 
it  should  be  contained  in  the  pleadings,  for  the  courts  will  not 
permit  an  advocate  to  wander  aimlessly  about,  but  will  keep 
him  within  the  lines  fixed  by  his  theory.  "  It  is  essential  to 
the  formation  of  the  issues,  and  to  the  intelligent  and  just  trial 
of  causes,  that  a  complaint  should  proceed  upon  a  distinct  and 
definite  theory."^  It  is,  therefore,  not  possible  to  put  a  case 
in  proper  condition  for  trial  without  having  constructed  a  clear 
and  definite  theory  of  the  case,  giving  due  regard  and  appro- 
priate place  to  the  elements  of  law  and  fact.  Tliis  principle  is 
recognized  in  the  elementary  rules  of  practice,  and  notably  so 
in  the  familiar  rule  of  evidence  that  the  party  must  recover 

'  "The  real  order  of  experience  be-  13  (16)  ;    Markover  v.  Krauss  (Ind.), 

gins  by  setting  up  a  light  and  then  17  L.  R.  A.  806;    Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

shows  the  road  by  it,  commencing  with  Slatton,  54  111.  133;     Michigan,  etc., 

a  regulated  and  digested,  not  a  mis-  Co.  v.  McDonough,  21  Mich.  165,  S.  C. 

placed  anrl  vague  course."     Bacon.  4  Am.  Rep.  466 ;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co. 

« Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bills,  104  lud.  v.  Perkins,  25  Mich.  329. 


§88  THK    THKOKY    OF    THE    CASK.  71 

secundum  allegata  ct  jjrohala,^  und  that  the  evidence  must  cor- 
respond with  the  allegations,  and  be  confined  to  the  point  in 
issue. 

§  88.  Cases  lost  because  of  a  wrong  theory. — The  courts 
have,  in  express  and  decisive  terms,  declared  that  a  cause  must 
proceed  upon  a  definite  theory,  and  have  often  denied  a  re- 
covery because  a  wrong  theory  was  adopted.  Thus,  in  a  re- 
ported case,^  the  jihiintiff's  cause  was  lost  because  the  theory 
adopted  was  that  the  plaintiff  might  recover  at  law  for  money 
loaned,  while  the  true  theory  was  that  the  claim  was  one  that 
might  be  enforced  in  equity.  In  another  case-^  the  theory  of 
the  plaintiff  was  that  ho  had  a  right  to  maintain  an  action  for 
the  recovery  of  specific  money,  but  he  met  defeat  because  his 
theory  was  unsound,  although  upon  a  sound  theory  he  would 
have  succeeded.  The  general  rule  has  been  thus  stated:  "It 
is  an  established  rule  of  pleading  that  a  complaint  must  pro- 
ceed on  some  definite  theory,  and  on  that  theory  the  plaintiff 
must  succeed  or  not  succeed  at  all.  A  complaint  can  not  be 
made  so  elastic  as  to  take  form  with  the  varying  views  of  coun- 
sel."* A  theory  of  the  law  of  the  case  radically  unsound  can 
not  secure  a  right  result;  however  strong  the  facts  may  be,  a 
wrong  theory  of  the  law  will  bring  ultimate  defeat. 

§  89.  Cases  gained  on  a  sound  theory. — The  same  case  may 
be  gained  on  a  sound  theory  that  would  be  lost  on  a  bad  one. 

'  Rome  Exchange  Bank  v.  Eames,  ris  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R.  Co.,  37  Mo. 

1   Keyes  (N.    Y.),    588;     Morgan    r.  307;    Springfield  City  R.   Co.   r.   De 

Gaar,  Scott  &  Co.,  64  Ind.  213;    The  Camp,  11    Brad.  (111.)  475;   Waldheir 

Johnston  Harvester  Co.  v.  Bartley,  81  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R.  Co.,  71  Mo. 

Ind.  40(i ;  Thomas  v.  Dale,  86  Ind.'435 ;  514. 

Mescall  r.  Tiilly,  91  Ind.  96;    Cottrell  '  Kniel  v.  Egleston,  22  Cent.  L.  J. 

V.  yEtna  Ins.  Co.,  97  Ind.  311 ;  City  of  133. 

Logansport  v.  Uhl,  99  Ind.  531 ;  Cleve-  »  Sager  v.  Blain,  44  N.  Y.  445. 

land,   etc.,  Ry.   Co.   v.   Wynant,  100  *  Mescall  i-.  Tally,  91  Ind.  96.     See, 

Ind. 160 ;  Bremmerman  r. Jennings, 101  also,  Lockwood  v.  Quackenbush,  83  N. 

Ind.  253 ;  Hannon  v.  Hilliard,  101  Ind.  Y.  607 ;  Judy  v.  Gilbert,  77  Ind.  96,  S. 

310;    Snow  r.  Indiana,  B.  &  AV.  Ry.  C.   40   Am.    Rep.   289;     Moorman  v. 

Co.,  109  Ind.  422,  S.  C.  9  N.  E.  Rep.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144  (147) ;    Feder  v. 

702;     John    G.    Lockwood     v.    John  Field,   117   Ind.  386  (391). 
Quackenbush  et  al.,  83  X.  Y.  607 ;  Har- 


72  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  90 

One  advocate  may  take  the  same  facts  and  secure  a  verdict, 
while  another  will  be  unable  to  frame  a  theory  that  can  be  suc- 
cessfully   maintained.     Mr.   Bishop  supplies  an  illustration.^ 
A  case  is  given  by  him  in  which  goods  were  brought  into  this 
country  in  violation  of    our  revenue  laws;  they  passed  the  cus- 
tom-house officers  under  a  permit  genuine  in  form  and  signa- 
ture, but  procured  by  bribery.      Counsel  to  whom  the  revenue 
officers  first  applied  for  advice  searched  the  statutes,  and,  finding 
no  provision  applying  to  the  particular  case,  advised  that  no 
prosecution  could   be  maintained.     Another  counsel  took  up 
the  case  and  secured  a  verdict.     His  theory  was  that  the  case 
was  the  ordinary  one  of    smuggling,  and  so  he  put  it  to  trial. 
When  the  permit  was  offered  it  went  in  evidence,  but  was  as- 
sailed and  overthrown  on  the  ground  of    fraud.     The  mistake 
of  the  counsel  first  consulted  was  in  framing  the  theory  of  the 
case.     In  another  case  counsel  brought  an  action  on  a  promise 
and  succeeded,  although  the  statute  of  limitations  was  pleaded; 
while,  on  tlie  same  facts,  the  first  action  brought  for  the  recov- 
ery of    damages  for  fraudulent  representations  was  defeated  by 
the  plea  of  the  statute  of  limitations.     Here  the  result  was  en- 
tirely changed  by  the  theory  adopted.     In  still  another  case  an 
action    was    brought  on    a  promissory   note.     The    defendant 
pleaded   a  discharge  in  bankruptcy;  the  plaintiff  replied  the 
general  denial  and  failed,  although  if    he  had  pleaded  that  the 
debt  was  a  fiduciary  one  he  would  have  succeeded,  as  many 
others  did  in  cases  where  the  facts  were  precisely  the  same  in 
legal  effect.     In  the  one  case  the  theory  was  wrong,  in  the 
others  no  mistake  was  made. 

§  90.  Other  illustrative  cases.— Another  class  of  cases  sup- 
plies an  illustration:  A  man  fell  into  an  excavation  in  a  pub- 
lic street  made  by  parties  licensed  by  the  municipal  corpora- 
tion. The  theory  adopted  by  counsel  was  that  the  corporation 
was  liable  for  the  negligence  of  its  licensees;  but  the  theory 
was  unsound 2  and  the  plaintiff    was  defeated.     The  same  facts 

'  First  Book  of  the  Law,  §§  124-125.        ^  See  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets, 

334,4(58  409. 


§  91  THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  73 

were  laid  before  other  counsel;  they  constructed  a  theory  that 
the  corporation  was  liable  because  it  was  chargealjle  with  notice 
of  the  dangerous  condition  of  the  street/  and  on  this  theory 
tried  the  case  and  secured  a  verdict.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  multiply  examples,  for  enough  have  been  collected  to  serve 
our  immediate  purpose,  which  is  to  suggest  to  the  advocate  the 
importance  of  a  sound  theory  of  the  law  of  the  case. 

§  01.  Necessity  of  a  theory. — A  mistake  in  devising  a  theory 
of  the  facts  is  not  always  fatal,  but  it  does,  in  every  instance, 
endanger  the  cause,  and  in  some  instances  does  lead  to  defeat. 
No  case  can  be  well  tried  upon  a  bad  theory  of  the  facts,  and 
without  a  theory  it  can  not  be  conducted  as  one  deserving  the 
name  of  advocate  would  care  to  conduct  a  case.  Without  a 
theory  of  the  facts  and  the  law,  there  can  be  neither  system 
nor  certainty  in  the  progress  of  the  case  through  the  courts.^ 
Some  cases  are  so  strong  that  no  blunderer  can  ruin  them,  but 
such  cases  are  very  rare.  It  is  only  cases  that  try  themselves 
by  their  own  inherent  strength  that  can  be  won  without  a 
theory  of  the  facts  as  well  as  of  the  law,  and  in  such  cases  no 
advocate  is  needed. 

§  92.  Contests  of  forum  likened  to  battles. — The  contests  of 
the  forum  are  often  likened  to  battles,  and  terms  and  sugges- 
tions are  often  borrowed  from  the  art  of  war.  Frequent  use  is 
made  of  such  terms  as  the  plan  of  "  the  campaign,"  the  "  line 
of  action,"  or  "line  of  defense."  Rufus  Choate  said  of  the 
advocates  who  defended  Professor  Webster,  "  that  they  should 
settle  on  tht'ir  certain  lino  of  defense."^  The  great  advocate 
displayed,  we  may  say  in  passing,  a  just  conception  of  the  true 
theory  of    the  defense,  and  a  keen  perception  of    the  weakness 

*  See  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets,  know  what  is  needed  for  the  proof  of 

461.  a  point,  what  is  wanting  in  a  theory, 

'"  Facts  may  sometimes  be  explain-  how    a    theory   hangs  together,   and 

ed  by  one  view  as  well  as  another,  but  wluit   will  follow  if  it  be  a<lmitted." 

without  a  theory  they  are  unintelligi-  Cardinal  Newman, 

bleand  uncommunicable."    Professor  '  Nelson's  Memoirs  of  Rufus  Choate, 

Grove.  "Nor  is  it  a  slight  benefit  to  18. 


74  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  93 

in  the  one  adopted.  His  judgment  was  that  the  theory  of  the 
defense  should  not  have  been  that  the  remains  found  in 
the  furnace  in  Webster's  laboratory  were  not  those  of  Dr. 
Parkman,  but  that  the  theory  should  have  been  so  constructed 
as  to  require  the  government  to  show  whether  Parkman  came 
to  his  death  by  visitation  of  God,  or  whether  the  killing  was 
the  result  of  a  sudden  quarrel,  or  was  done  in  self-defense. 
Returning  from  this  slight  digression,  we  say  that  the  terms 
borrowed  from  military  science  are  not  without  relevance  and 
force,  but  they  are,  while  expressive  and  forcible,  apt  to  mis- 
lead if  the  ideas  they  suggest  are  too  closely  followed  in  the 
work  of  preparing  and  putting  a  case  to  trial.  The  term  "theory 
of  the  case"  is  generally  used  by  the  courts,  and  is,  perhaps, 
as  expressive  and  accurate  as  any  general  term  can  be. 

§  93.  Definition  of  theory  of  the  case. — A  theory  of  the  case 
is  a  comprehensive  and  orderly  mental  arrangement  of  princi- 
ples and  facts,  conceived  and  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  se- 
curing a  judgment  or  a  decree  of  a  court  in  favor  of  a  litigant.^ 
The  object  sought  is  the  judgment  of  the  court,  and  the  theory 
is  the  means  to  that  end.  A  theory  of  a  case  is  more  than  a 
provisional  fiction,  although  it  may  contain  many  suppositions 
or  conjectures;  it  is  more  than  a  plan,  although  it  is  a  sys- 
tematic compendium  of  details;  it  is  more  than  a  system  of 
conjectures,  although  it  contains  many  hypotheses.  It  is  a 
mental  creation,  embodying  the  principles  of  action,  the  scheme 
of  conduct,  and  the  methods  of  procedure.  It  is  more  than  a 
fiction,  for  it  is  a  mental  representation  of  a  real  case,  conceived 
for  an  actual  purpose,  and  such  representations  are  not  fictions, 
although  they  are  intangible.  It  is  different  from  a  plan,  be- 
cause it  not  only  marks  out  what  is  to  be  done  but  also  accounts 
for  many  facts,  and  places  a  foundation  beneath  many  princi- 

^"A  theory  takes  a  multitude  of  means  the  completed  result  of  philo- 
facts,  all  disjointed,  or,  at  most,  sus-  sophieal  induction,  and  theory  of  some 
pected  of  some  interdependency  ;  these  sort  is  the  necessary  result  of  know- 
it  takes  and  places  under  strict  laws  of  ing  anything  of  a  subject."  John 
relation  to  each  other."  DeQuincey.  Stuart  Mill. 
"  In  its  most  proper  acceptation  theory 


§94  TllK    TIIKOliV    OF    THE    CASK.  75 

pies.  The  framcr  of  a  theory  does,  in  some  degree  at  least,  take 
upon  himself  the  dual  character  of  architect  and  philosopher. 
In  so  far  as  he  devises  and  marks  out  a  j)lan,  his  duties  are 
those  of  an  architect;  while  in  so  far  as  he  accounts  for  facts, 
or  supplies  hypotheses  for  the  support  of  principles,  his  duties 
are  those  of  a  philosopher.' 

§94.  Different  uses  of  the  word  "theory." — The  word 
"theory  "  is  sometimes  used  as  meaning  a  mere  speculative 
scheme,  either  purely  visionary,  or  framed  without  any  view  to 
practical  use.  It  is  in  other  cases  used  to  denote  a  philosophical 
explanation  of  some  physical  phenomenon,  as  Wells'  "  Theory 
of  Dew,"  or  Tyndal's  "Theory  of  Light."  In  otlier  cases  it 
is  used  as  signifying  an  explanation  of  some  moral  or  ethical 
subject,  as  Adam  Smith's  "Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments,"  or 
"The  Theory  of  Ethics."  In  still  different  cases  it  is  used  as 
meaning  the  exjDosition  of  the  principles  of  a  science,  as  the 
"  Theory  of  Thought,"  "  The  Theory  of  Music ;  "  and  in  other 
cases  it  is  used  to  denote  the  philosophy  of  a  branch  of  science, 
as  "  The  Theory  of  the  Common  Law. "  It  is  evident  that  no  one 
of  these  definitions,  taken  in  itself,  conveys  an  adequate  mean- 
ing of  the  term  when  used  as  indicating  the  scheme,  or  plan, 
of  an  action  at  law  or  a  suit  in  equity.  A  theory  of  a  case 
contains  all  the  elements  of  the  various  theories  described  in 
these  definitions.  It  is,  however,  never  a  mere  speculative 
scheme,  although  many  of  the  principles  of  law  which  enter 
into  its  composition  are  the  products  of  speculative  thought. 
The  speculation  which  produces,  or  discovers,  these  principles 
is  guided  by  analogy,  is  directed  to  a  certain  end.  and  is  under- 
taken for  a  real  purpose.  Many  of  these  principles  are  ob- 
tained by  inductive  investigation ;  others  are  deduced  from 
established  maxims  and  axioms.  B}'^  whatever  method  these 
principles  are  obtained,  they  require  development  and  exposi- 
tion. The  facts  are  gathered  by  observation  and  from  evi- 
dence, but  their  existence  and  effect  are  to  be  accounted  for  and 

'"One  great    obstacle  to    progress    the  ignorance  or  contempt  of  theory 
and  improvement  has  been  the  neglect     in  mere  practical  men."     Dr.  Rees. 
of  practice   in  speculative  men,   and 


76  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  95 

extended  by  hypothesis  and  inference.  The  facts  which  we 
obtain  from  testimony  or  observation  supply  the  basis  for  an 
inference  which  often  leads  to  results  far  beyond  the  immediate 
influence  or  effect  of  the  observed  or  proved  fact  itself,  and  con- 
jecture is  often  necessary  in  order  that  the  work  of  inferring 
shall  take  the  proper  direction.  The  proved  facts,  the  inferen- 
tial results  springing  from  them,  as  well  as  the  conjectures  as 
to  the  manner  and  reality  of  their  existence,  will  be  ineffective, 
if  not  unintelligible,  unless  put  into  an  orderly  and  systematic 
form.  There  is,  therefore,  in  the  theory  of  a  case,  a  collection 
of  many  and  different  things  resulting  in  the  formation  of  a 
mental  structure  which  has  in  it  some  of  the  qualities  of  a 
plan,  man}^  of  the  characteristics  of  a  scheme,  many  of  the 
features  of  a  system;  and  when  fully  developed,  this  structure 
becomes  an  exposition  of  principles  and  facts. 

§  95.  Meaning  of  word  "theory." — The  word  "theory  "  is 
very  frequently  used  as  signifying  the  foundation  of  a  rule  of 
law.  Thus  it  is  said:  "The  theory  of  prescription  rests  upon 
the  presumption  of  a  past  grant."  Again,  it  is  said  that,  "the 
theory  of  title  by  limitation  is  that  the  repose  of  society  requires 
that  long  continued  possession  shall  not  be  disturbed."  A  Mis- 
souri case  supplies  an  illustration  of  the  conflict  of  rival  the- 
ories of  law.  It  was  said  in  that  case:  "The  two  leading 
theories  are  that,  as  to  her  separate  estate,  the  wife  is  a  feme 
sole;  that  she  may  contract  debts,  as  though  unmarried,  for  the 
payment  of  which  her  property  is  liolden.  Upon  this  theory 
it  can  not  matter  whether  the  debt  l^e  evidenced  by  a  written 
instrument  or  not,  if  it  is  established  to  be  her  debt.  The 
other  theory  is  tliat  the  grant  of  a  separate  estate  does  not  give 
the  wife  a  credit  based  upon  it."^  Another  case  supplies  an 
illustration  of  the  use  of  the  word  as  denoting  the  rule  upon 
which  decisions  were  based,  the  court  saying:  "These  cases 
are  based  upon  the  theory  that  the  responsibility  of  the  appel- 
lant to  the  appellee  was  no  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had 

»  Miller  v.  Brown,  47  Mo.  504. 


§  96  THE    TIIKOKY    OF    THE    CASE.  77 

the  latter  been  a  stran<,a'i-  instead  of  a  passenger.     This  theory 
is  incorrect."  ^ 

§  90.  "  Thoory  "  means  more  than  "  hypothesis." — The  word 
"  theory  "  is  frequently  used  where  "  hypothesis  "  would  more 
clearly  and  accurately  express  the  idea  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed. The  terms  arc  not  synonymous;  for  theory  means 
something  of  a  more  permanent  and  complete  character  tlian 
the  thing  denoted  by  tlie  word  "  hypothesis."  A  lawyer  who 
should  say  he  had  framed  a  theoretical  question  for  an  expert 
witness  would  not  convey  his  real  meaning;  but  if  he  should 
say  he  had  framed  an  hypothetical  question  there  would  be  no 
uncertainty  as  to  the  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed.  AVhere 
a  supposition  or  conjecture  is  made  for  tlie  purpose  of  explain- 
ing or  accounting  for  a  fact,  an  hypothesis  is  formed,  and 
when  this  becomes  settled  by  investigation  and  proof,  a  theory 
is  constructed,  which  takes  the  place  of  the  hypothesis.  In 
general,  however,  tlieor}-  means  something  more  than  the  ex- 
planation of  an  isolated  fact.^  Suppose  the  case  to  be  that  of 
a  man  accused  of  murder,  and  that  blood-stains  are  found  upon 
his  garments;  the  hypothesis  of  tlie  prosecution  would  be  that 
the  stains  were  caused  by  the  blood  of  the  murdered  man;  and 
this  would  form  one  of  the  criminative  circumstances  adduced 
against  the  accused.  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  would  reject 
til  is  hypothesis,  and  endeavor  to  frame  another  and,  if  pos- 
sible, more  probable  one.  His  first  work  would  be  that  of 
conjecture,  his  next  that  of  investigation.  If,  in  the  course  of 
his  investigation,  he  should  discover  something  likely  to  pro- 

*  Sherley  v.  Billings,  8  Bush.  (Ky.)  ruling  characteristics."     At    another 

147,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Rep.  451.  place  he  says :     "  How  then  can  a  fact 

*Dr.  "Wharton  says:  "The  facts  be  rightly  viewed  and  narrated  other- 
are  meaningless  unless  they  fit  to  an  wise  than  from  an  eminence  domina- 
hypothesis."  Mazzini  says:  "The  ting  alike  the  cause,  the  fact  and  the 
historian  must  necessarily  have  some  aim."  The  advocate  must  know  the 
theory  of  arrangement,  perspective  fact,  he  must  give  it  proper  position, 
and  expression  from  which,  logically,  attribute  its  existence  to  the  actual 
he  will  be  guided  to  a  theory  of  causes,  cause,  and  assign  to  it  due  influence 
The  cause  of  every  fact  is  an  essential  upon  the  object  he  aims  to  accomplish. 
part  of  that  fact  and  determines  its 


78  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  97 

duce  the  stains,  as,  for  instance,  that  his  client  had  been 
slaughtering  an  ox,  he  would  adopt  the  hypothesis  that  the 
stains  were  caused  by  the  blood  of  that  animal.  The  hypoth- 
esis would  only  account  for  one  of  many  of  the  facts  of  the 
case,  and  it  is  evident  that  in  such  a  case  as  that  supposed,  as, 
indeed,  in  almost  all  real  cases,  there  would  be  many  other 
facts  to  be  explained  or  accounted  for.  There  are,  therefore, 
in  every  complicated  case  many  hypotheses,  and  these  are  to  be 
gathered  up  and  arranged  in  an  orderly  and  systematic  scheme. 

§97.   Difference    between    theory  and    hypothesis.  —  De- 

Quincey  has  acutely  marked  the  difference  between  a  theory 
and  an  hypothesis,  saying:  "A  theory,  therefore,  may  be  de- 
fined: an  organic  development  to  the  understanding  of  the  re- 
lations between  the  parts  of  any  systematic  whole.  But  in  a 
hypothesis  it  is  only  one  relation  which  is  investigated,  viz; 
that  of  dependency.  A  number  of  phenomena  are  given,  and 
perhaps  with  no  want  of  orderly  relation  amongst  them,  but 
as  yet  they  exist  without  apparent  basis  or  support.  The  ques- 
tion, therefore,  is  concerning  a  sufficient  ground  or  cause  to 
account  for  them.  I,  therefore,  step  in  and  underlay  the  phe- 
nomena with  a  sub-structure,  or  sub-position,  such  as  I  think 
capable  of  supporting  them.  This  is  a  hypothesis.  Briefly, 
then,  in  a  theory  I  organize  what  is  certain  enough  already, 
but  undetermined  in  its  relations;  whereas,  in  a  hypothesis  I 
assign  the  causality  where  it  was  previously  unknown."  He 
concludes  his  discussion  by  affirming  that  ''  Theory  is  ordin- 
ation; hypothesis  is  suh»traction."^ 

§  98.  Hypotheses— Deduction.— It  is  no  doubt  an  important 
part  of  the  theory  of  a  case  to  organize  into  a  systematic  com- 
pendium the  principles  of  law  and  matters  of  fact  known  to 
the  advocate,  but  it  is  not  less  important  that  the  hypotheses 

^DeQuincey's  Writings,  Vol.   IX,  and  given,  the  object  is  to  place  below 

Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.  ed.  604.    He  these  phenomena  a  basis  capable  of 

further  says:     "That  is  properly  an  supporting  them  and  accounting  for 

hypothesis  wiiere  the  question  is  about  them." 
a  cause,  certain  phenomena  are  known 


§  99  THE    TilEOKY    OV    THE    CASE.  79 

which,  in  every  complicated  case,  are  necessary  to  account  for 
the  conclusions  of  fact  essential  to  success,  should  have  {)laced 
under  them  a  "  sul)-structure  "  of  minor  facts  that  will  make 
them  appear  to  be  true.  These  conclusions  of  fact,  which  are 
the  points  that  in  a  great  measure  control  cases,  must  be  so 
underlaid  tluit  their  probability  will  be  so  strong  as  to  carry 
conviction.  The  advocate  must,  as  L)e  Quincey  says,  "step  in  " 
and  underlay  these  conclusions,  which  are  in  reality  hypotli- 
eses,  with  such  a  sub-structure  as  will  give  them  support.  The 
advocate  must,  in  almost  every  case,  advance  beyond  the  facts 
directly  established  by  the  evidence.  He  must  deduce  conclu- 
sions from  the  facts  directly  proved,  and  this  is  done  by  fram- 
ing hypotheses.  They  are  bridges  which  carry  him  across  gaps 
and  chasms  which  would  otherwise  be  impassable.  It  is  said 
by  Uberweg  that  ''The  formation  of  hypotheses  is  a  means  to 
scientific  investigation  as  justifiable  as  indispensable,"^  and 
that  this  is  true  is  proved  by  the  course  pursued  by  those  who 
have  made  great  discoveries  in  the  physical  sciences,  as  w^ell  as 
by  the  practice  of  those  who  have  been  great  trial  lawyers. 

§  99.   Great  lawyers  skillful  in  constructing  hypotheses. — 

Choate's  success  was  owing  quite  as  much  to  his  acuteness  in 
constructing  hypotheses  as  to  his  eloquence.  Scarlett,  ''the 
great  verdict-getter,"  was  not  an  orator,  but  he  was  a  scientific 
framer  of  hypotheses.  It  will  be  evident  to  one  who  carefully 
studies  the  jury  arguments  of  Erskine  that  much  of  his  suc- 
cess was  owing  to  the  dexterity  with  which  he  framed  his  hy- 
potheses, although  his  wonderful  power  as  a  speaker  added 
greatly  to  his  success.  Take,  for  instance,  his  grand  defense 
of  Hadfield,  and  it  will  be  found  that,  eloquent  as  his  speech 
was,  it  was  the  dexterity  with  which  he  framed  his  hypotheses, 
quite  as  much  as  his  arguments,  that  induced  Lord  Kenyon  to 
inform  the  attorney-general,  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  priso- 
ner's evidence,  that  "the  case  should  not  be  proceeded  in." 
Webster's  conduct  of  the  prosecution  and  defense  of  causes 
exhibits  the  same  great  skill  in  constructing  hypotheses,  and 

'  Logic,  oOG. 


80  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  100 

of  this  his  speeches  in  the  prosecution  of  John  F.  Knapp,  and 
in  defense  of  the  Kennistons  for  the  robbery  of  Major  Good- 
ridge,  supply  ani})le  i)roof.  Perhaps  no  hypothesis  was  ever 
more  clearly  conceived  by  any  advocate,  or  more  vividly  placed 
before  a  jury,  than  that  of  Webster  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  murder  of  Joseph  White  was  committed. 

§  100.  H}i)othoses  must  be  probable. — The  study  of  the 
speeches  of  great  advocates  becomes  much  more  interesting  and 
far  more  profitable  if  the  reader  searches  for  and  grasps  the  hy- 
potheses which  the  speaker  has  framed  before  entering  upon 
his  work;  for,  to  borrow  something  of  Southey's  thought  and 
lansuaire,  '*  as  the  beams  to  a  house,  as  the  bones  to  the  micro- 
cosm  of  man,"  so  are  the  hypotheses  to  the  speech  of  the  ad- 
vocate. It  is  said  by  a  German  thinker  that:  "The  intelligent 
man  is  not  he  who  avoids  hypotheses,  but  he  who  asserts  the 
most  probable,  and  best  knows  how  to  estimate  their  degree  of 
probability.  What  is  called  certainty  in  a  law  case  is  at  bot- 
tom only  the  probability  of  the  hypothesis  which  refuses  to  ad- 
mit the  possibility  of  error  in  the  mind  of  the  judge.  "^  It  is 
certainly  true  that  the  intelligent  lawyer  is  not  the  one  who 
avoids  hypotheses,  for  he  knows  that  upon  them  chiefly  rests 
his  hope  of  success  in  all  intricate  cases.  Their  force  depends 
in  a  great  degree  upon  their  probability.  Jurors  will  give  lit- 
tle heed  to  improbable  hypotheses;  but  it  is  not  always  the  bold 
hypothesis  that  is  improbable.  The  circumstances  may  be  such 
as  make  a  bold  hypothesis  the  most  probable  that  can  be  framed. 
' '  But  to  the  most  ingenious  boldness  in  the  invention  of  hy- 
potheses there  must  be  united  the  most  cautious  accuracy  in 
testing  them.  Scientific  hypotheses  are  not  assertions  which 
have  been  floating  in  the  air  and  are  laid  hold  of;  they  are  the 
result  of  regular  reflection  on  experiences."  The  test  must  be 
that  of  probability  and  the  guide  that  of  experience.  Only 
such  hypotheses  as  are  rational,  conform  to  experience,  and  are 
supported  by  probability,  will  stand  the  rough  usage  they  will 
receive  in  the  forum. 

'  Uberweg  Logic,  507. 


§   101  THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  81 

§  101.  Fanciful  hypotheses.— Strange  or  unnatural  hypoth- 
eses are  expedient  only  in  extraordinary  cases. ^  In  the  cases 
which  ordinarily  arise  strange  or  fanciful  hypotheses  are  never 
to  be  framed,  for  an  ordinary  case  thus  decked  out  would  look 
so  improbable  that  success  would  be  impossible.  But  what- 
ever the  demands  of  the  case,  the  cardinal  rule  is  to  frame 
such  hypotheses  as  shall  appear  probable.  Edgar  A.  Poe  was 
very  dexterous  in  framing  marvelous  hypotheses  and  giving 
them  an  air  of  probability  ;  nor  was  he  less  skillful  in  detect- 
ing an  unsound  hypothesis  than  in  constructing  natural  ones, 
and  a  study  of  some  of  his  productions  is,  for  this  reason,  if 
for  no  other,  instructive  and  profitable.^  But,  whether  the 
hypothesis  be  a  strange  one  or  an  ordinary  one,  it  must  not 
be  improbable.  As  Uberweg  says,  "The  hypothesis  is  the 
more  improbable  in  proportion  as  it  must  be  propped  up  by 
artificial  auxiliary  hypotheses.  It  gains  in  probability  by 
simplicity  and  harmony,  or  identity  with  other  probable  or  cer- 
tain suppositions. 


"  3 


§  102.  Definition  of  hypothesis— Common  use.— Hypothesis 
precedes  theory.  "An  hypothesis,"  according  to  Mill,  "is 
any  explanation  which  we  make,  either  without  evidence,  or 
on  evidence  avowedly  insufficient,  in  order  to  deduce  from  it 
facts  which  are  known  to  be  real."  According  to  Uberweg: 
"Hypothesis    is   the  preliminary   admission  of   an   uncertain 

'  That  there  are  cases  in  which  they  Johnstown  disaster.     There   is  much 

are  expedient  is  proved  by  the  effect  truth  in  what  Mr.  Besant  represents 

of    the    theory    advanced    by    Rufus  his  soHcitor  as  saying:    "Everything 

Choatein  Furst'sCase.     Brown's  Life  is  possible.     Let  us  not  argue  possi- 

of  Choate,  179.  Strange  and  unnatural  bilities.     We  have  certain  facts  before 

things  are  sometimes  done  by  men,  us ;  by  the  help  of  these  I  shall  hope 

and  occurrences  described  by  writers  to  find  out  others." 

of  fiction  and  criticised  as  improbable  "^  The  Murder  in  the  Rue  Morgue  is 

have  often  been  duplicated  in  actual  a  striking  illustration   of  Poe's   skill 

life.      The    bursting    of  the    dam   in  in  making  a  strange  theory  seem  prob- 

Charles  Reade's  "  Put  Yourself  in  His  able,  and  the  :\Iystery  of  ^Lirie  Roget 

Place,"  which  was  at  one  time  sup-  is  a  remarkable  exhibition  of  his  skill 

posed  to  be  impossible,  has  since  been  in  constructing  a  natural  hypothesis, 

shown  to  be  probable  by  a  similar  oc-  ^  Uberweg  Logic,  506. 
currence  in  Massachusetts  an.l  liv  the 

6 


82  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  103 

premise,  which  states  what  is  held  to  be  a  cause  in  order  to 
test  it  by  its  consequences."  Men  in  every  day  life  form  hy- 
potheses, and  often  in  regard  to  common  occurrences.  A 
wagon  is  overturned  or  a  mill  stopped,  and  the  first  mental  act 
of  one  interested  is  to  form  some  conjecture  as  to  the  cause  of 
the  accident.  In  commercial  life  the  most  successful  men  are 
those  who  are  most  sagacious  in  forming  hypotheses.  Here, 
as  elsewhere,  probabilities  are  to  be  measured,  and  the  results 
to  be  accepted  as  not  only  accounting  for  what  is  past,  but  as, 
in  some  degree,  predicting  what  will  happen  in  the  future.  It 
is,  therefore,  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  only  philosophers  and 
lawyers  make  use  of  hypotheses.  It  may,  indeed,  be  doubted 
whether  there  is  any  calling  in  life  in  which  use  is  not  made 
of  hypotheses.  Mr.  Mill  has  depicted  the  process  which  men 
habitually  pursue,  oftentimes  without  being  conscious  of  their 
own  mental  operations.  "  Let  any  one  w^atch  the  manner  in 
which  he  himself  unravels  the  complicated  mass  of  evidence ; 
let  him  observe  how,  for  instance,  he  elicits  the  true  history  of 
any  occurrence  from  the  involved  statements  of  one,  or  of 
many,  witnesses  ;  he  will  find  that  he  does  not  take  all  of  the 
items  into  his  mind  and  attempt  to  weave  them  together  ;  he 
extemporizes  from  a  few  of  the  particulars  a  first  rude  theory 
of  the  mode  in  which  the  facts  took  place,  and  then  looks  at 
the  other  statements  one  by  one,  to  try  whether  they  can  be 
reconciled  with  that  provisional  theory,  or  what  alterations  or 
additions  it  requires  to  make  it  square  with  the  facts." 

§  103.  Examples  of  hypotheses. — What  Quintilian  calls  a 
conjecture  is  very  much  the  same  thing  as  that  which  is  now 
usually  denominated  an  hypothesis.  John  Locke's  guess  is  a 
crude  hypothesis;  as  is  evident  from  such  passages  as  :  "  This 
appearance  of  theirs  in  train,  though  perhaps  it  may  be  some- 
times faster  and  sometimes  slower,  yet,  I  guess,  varies  not 
much  more  in  a  waking  man."  The  truth  is,  that  all  guesses 
and  conjectures  are  crude  hypotheses,  and  men  are  engaged  in 
forming  them  who  are  ignorant  of  the  mental  operation.  They 
are  formed  to  account  for  things  happening  every  day.     The 


§   104  TIIL    TilKUltY    OF    TIIK    CASE.  83 

carter's  wheel  flies  off  the  axle  of  his  cart,  and  his  hypothesis 
is  that  tlio  lincli-})iii  has  fallen  out.  The  gardener's  seeds  are 
dug  up  and  he  sees  the  tracks  of  chickens,  and  his  hypothesis 
is  that  the  mischief  was  done  l)y  them. 

§  104.  Value  of  hypotheses. — The  faculty  of  promptly  and 
accurately  framing  an  hypothesis  that  will  account  for  an  oc- 
currence is  one  of  great  value,  no  matter  in  what  pursuit  its 
possessor  is  engaged,  but  to  the  philosopher,  the  physician 
and  the  lawyer  it  is  indispensable.  No  learning,  however 
great;  no  study,  however  assiduous,  will  supply  its  place. 
This  faculty  can  be  strengthened  and  improved  by  exercise. 
For  proof  of  this,  if  proof  be  needed,  we  need  only  instance 
the  readiness  and  accuracy  with  which  the  experienced  phy- 
sician frames  an  hypothesis,  accounting  for  the  presence  of 
the  symptoms  which  he  observes  in  his  patient,  or  the  prompt- 
ness and  certainty  with  whicli  the  thinking  mechanic  ac- 
counts for  a  defect  in  a  complicated  machine.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  no  calling  of  life  requires,  as  a  condition  of 
success,  a  higher  development  of  this  faculty  than  does  the 
profession  of  the  advocate.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  clearly 
the  principles  of  law  governing  a  case  without  an  hypothesis, 
and  it  is  not  less  difficult  to  understand  the  facts  and  compre- 
hend their  relation  and  effect  without  one. 

§  105.  Hypotheses  are  necessary  in  communicatina:  facts 
ami  ideas. — Hypothesis  is  not  onl}'  essential  to  the  acquisition 
of  adequate  ideas  by  the  thinker  himself,  but  it  is  also  essential 
to  an  intelligent  communication  of  them  to  others.^    Professor 

^  The  eloquent  Mazzini  in  his  review  hypotheses,     afterward    verified     by 

of  Carlyle's  French  Revolution  in  de-  study,  how  this  hypothesis  of  the  life 

fending  what  he  calls  tlie  "  School  of  and    progress  of    humanity  may    be 

Progressive  Movement"  says:     "In  traced  up  to  Dante,  and  illumines  the 

other  countries   it  has  been  charged  page  of  Bacon  and  how  fruitful  it  al- 

with  being  the  School  of  Hypothesis,  ready  is  of  life  and  movement  amongst 

If  they  who  bring  this  charge  were  to  all  the  populations  of  Europe  to-day, 

remember  that  all  tlie  greatest  discov-  they  might  i)erhaps  be  less  hearty  in 

eries  of  the  human    intellect  in   the  condemnation."     The   influence    and 

various   sciences    have  originated  in  power  of   well  framed  hypotheses  is 


84  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §   106 

Grove  saj^s :  '"'Let  iis  use  our  utmost  effort  to  communicate  a 
fact  without  using  the  language  of  theory  and  we  fail.  Theory- 
is  involved  in  all  our  expressions ;  the  knowledge  of  by-gone 
times  is  imparted  into  succeeding  times  by  theoretic  conceptions. 
As  the  succeeding  knowledge  of  any  particular  science  develops 
itself  to  our  view  it  becomes  more  simple,  hypotheses,  or  the 
introduction  of  supposititious  views,  are  more  and  more  dis- 
pensed with,  words  become  more  directly  applicable  to  the 
phenomena,  and,  losing  the  hypothetic  meaning  which  they 
necessarily  possessed  at  their  inception,  acquire  a  secondary 
sense,  which  brings  more  immediately  to  our  minds  the  facts 
of  which  they  are  indices.  The  hypothesis  fades  away,  and  a 
theory,  more  independent  of  supposition,  but  still  full  of  gaps, 
takes  its  place." 

§  106.  Use  of  imagination  in  forming  theory. — In  the  pro- 
cess of  forming  a  theory  we  exercise,  not  only  the  understand- 
ing, but  also  the  imagination.  It  is  impossible  for  an  observ- 
ing or  reflecting  man  to  pass  one  day  in  the  ordinary  business 
of  life  without  having  made  some  use  of  the  representative  fac- 
ultv.  Imagination  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  opposed  to 
the  useful  and  practical ;  but  this,  like  many  other  theories,  is, 
as  it  is  easy  to  prove,  altogether  erroneous.  We  do  use  the 
imagination  in  the  most  matter  of  fact  affairs  in  life,  and  in 
the  driest  and  most  abstruse  sciences.^  Sir  William  Hamilton 
declares  that  it  is  essential  to  the  successful  cultivation  of  every 
scientific  pursuit,  and  that  "  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
Aristotle  did  not  possess  as  powerful  an  imagination  as 
Horner.""^  Sir  Benjamin  Brodie  says  that  when  controlled  by 
experience  ''it  becomes  the  noblest  attribute  of  man,  the  source 

felt  in  such  great  works  as  Freeman's  called  them,  is,  that  they  are  gifted 

Comparative    Politics,    and    Taylor's  with  imaginations  entirely  too  fertile; 

Origin   and  Growth   of  the    English  but  we  beg  leave  to  explain  that  the 

Constitution,  as  well  as  in  the  inven-  imagination  which  we  commend  is  the 

tions  and  discoveries  in  the  science  of  scientific    imagination,    which    seeks 

physics  and  in  the  mechanical  arts.  images  of  truth,  and  not  their  counter' 

^  We    are  not  unmindful  that  the  feit  presentment, 

popular  view  of  the  lawyers,  the  "  sons  *  Lectures  on  Logic,  426. 
of  Zeruiah,"  as  Cromwell's  Puritans 


§  107  TIIK    THEORY    OF    TIIK    CASK.  85 

of  poetic  [;;oiiius  and  the  instrument  of  discovery  in  science." 
Prof.  Tyndal,  in  his  lecture  on  the  "Scientific  Use  of  the 
Imagination,"  ^  afiirms  that  it  is  one  of  tlie  most  important  of 
all  the  faculties  in  the  investigation  of  scientific  truths,  and 
beautifully  says:  "In  the  dim  Iv/ilight  of  conjecture  the 
searcher  welcomes  every  gleam,  and  seeks  to  augment  his  light 
by  indirect  incidences."  Professor  Washburne,  in  speaking  of 
the  imagination,  says,  that  by  it  the  lawyer  "is  often  able  to 
guess  out  and  anticipate  what  he  has  to  meet  in  his  adversary's 
case,  and  thus  forestall  the  effect  of  what  he  is  to  bring  against 
him  by  being  prepared  to  counteract  it."^  We  think  that  Pro- 
fessor Washburne  limits  the  use  and  office  of  tlie  imagination 
entirely  too  much.  It  is,  it  seems  to  us,  as  essential  in  framing 
hypotheses  to  support  the  advocate's  own  case  as  it  is  in  ascer- 
taining what  his  adversary  will  likely  bring  against  him.  It 
supplies  the  means  of  advancing  from  the  direct  evidence  to 
the  ultimate  facts;  it  supplies  the  light  which  discloses  the  road 
that  leads  to  a  successful  termination  of  the  investigation.  But 
for  this  faculty  progress  would  sometimes  be  impossible.  An 
investigation  pursued  in  darkness  can  only  result  in  obscurity 
and  doubt.  If  the  investigator  can  vividly  imagine  the  object 
he  seeks  to  reach,  and  the  road  to  it,  he  is  much  more  likely 
to  reach  it  than  if  he  stumbles  on  without  any  definite  end 
in  view.  "  Be  our  business  in  life  however  prosaic,"  says 
Bulwer,  "we  shall  not  attain  any  eminent  success  if  we  despise 
the  clairvoyance  which  imagination  alone  bestows.  No  man 
can  think  justly  but  what  he  is  compelled  to  imagine;  that  is, 
his  thoughts  must  come  before  him  in  images.  Every  thought 
not  distinctly  imaged  is  imperfect  and  abortive."  ^ 

§  107.  Imagination  aids  in  forming  hypotheses. — Quintilian 
says  that,  "  In  regard,  then,  to  everything  that  is  done,  the 
question  is  either  why,  or  when,  or  in  what  manner,  or  by  what 
means  it  was  done,"  and  these  questions  are  not  always  an- 

^  Fragments  of  Science,  127.  '  Caxtouia,  49. 

*  Lectin's  on  the  Study  and  Prac- 
tice -ii  l-avv,  10. 


86  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §   108 

sweredbj'"  the  information  which  the  advocate  secures  at  the  com- 
mencement of  his  work.     Where  there  is  evidence  bearing  up- 
on all  of  these  questions  the  answers  are  there  found,  but  it  is 
seldom  that  the  direct  evidence  furnishes  answers  to  all  the 
material  questions  that  arise  in  the  cause — sometimes  indeed, 
not  to  any  of  them — so  that  the  only  course  open  to  the  investi- 
gator is  that  of  conjecture,  and  in  that  process  imagination  Is 
a  most  potent  instrument.     It  advances  answers  which,  if  not 
always  correct,  at  least  open  and  light  the  way  to  an  intelligent 
investigation.     It  may  be  that  the  understanding  will  reject 
the  answers  at  first  suggested  by  the  imagination,  but,  if    so, 
repeated  attempts  will  be  made  until  some  answer  is  suggested 
that  will  receive  a  favorable  judgment.     If  it  were  not  for  the 
materials  presented  to  the  mind  by  the  imagination  there  would, 
in  many  cases,  be  nothing  upon  which  the  understanding  could 
work.     The  imagination  presents,  it  may  be,  various  hypotheses 
or  conjectures;  these  the  mind  tests,  rejecting  those  it  judges 
untenable,  and  accepting  those  it  judges  reasonable.     If  it  were 
not  for  these  conjectures  no  real  progress  toward  explaining  or 
accounting  for  a  transaction  involved  in  obscurity  or  mystery 
could  be  made.     The  really  great  advocates  employ  the  imagi- 
nation quite  as  much  in  the  work  of  securing  materials  for  the 
construction  of  probable  hypotheses  as  in  embellishing  their 
addresses.     This  is  true  of   the  most  brilliant  and  eloquent  of 
the  great  trial  lawyers,  and  the  study  of  their  addresses  is  much 
more  valuable  when  directed  to  a  discovery  of  their  use  of  the 
imagination  in  constructing  hypotheses  than  when   directed 
merely  to  their  graces  of  diction. 

§  108.   Effective  work  of  advocates  in  constructing  hypoth- 

eges. — The  most  effective  work  done  by  the  advocate  is  in 
constructing  hypotheses  that  will  lead  to  a  favorable  decision, 
for  it  is  true  that  in  by  far  the  greater  number  of  cases  it  is 
not  the  beauty  of  diction  nor  the  wealth  of  imagery  that  wins 
the  contest,  but  the  skillfully  framed  hypotheses.  Take,  for 
example,  the  brilliant  Sargent  S.  Prentiss  and  analyze  one  of 
his  most  ornate  addresses,  that  in  behalf  of  Wilkinson,  and  it 


§  109  THK    TIlKoliY    OV    TIIK    CASK.  87 

will  be  found  that  be  used  bis  imagination  quite  as  mucb  in 
framing  bypotbescs  as  in  ornamenting  Jiis  address.  He  out- 
lines bis  principal  bypotbesis  at  tbe  outset,  and  concludes  bis 
discussion  of  it  by  saying:  "  1  have  exbibited  to  you  an  al- 
most countless  variety  of  circumstances,  tbe  occurrence  of 
wbich,  or  any  great  portion  of  tbem,  is  absolutely  incompati- 
ble with  any  bypotbesis  other  than  that  of  the  conspiracy  wbich 
at  tbe  outset  I  proposed  to  prove.  Upon  that  hypothesis  all 
those  circumstances  are  easily  explicable,  and  in  accordance 
witli  tbe  ordinary  principles  of  human  action."  Take  an  ad- 
vocate of  another  class,  for  instances,  Charles  Phillips.  He 
was  not  lacking  in  imagination,  but  it  was  not  one  valuable  to 
the  lawyer,  and  his  speeches,  being  destitute  of  hypotheses, 
are  little  more  than  empty  words  expressing  no  thoughts. 
They  seem  like  a  tawdry  suit  of  clothes  upon  a  lifeless  body. 

§  109.  Working  hypotheses. — Provisional  or  working  hy- 
potheses are  valuable  in  prosecuting  an  investigation  "In 
tbe  course  of  a  research  many  suppositions  are  made,  and  re- 
jected or  admitted  according  to  tbe  evidence."^  We  know,  for 
instance,  that  a  man  was  found  mangled  and  dead  on  a  rail- 
road track,  and  that  he  was  seen  a  few  minutes  before  his 
death  in  a  violent  altercation  with  an  enemy.  If  we  knew  no 
more,  our  provisional  hypothesis  would  be  that  be  entered  on 
the  track  and  was  killed  by  a  passing  train  ;  for  we  would  have 
no  right  to  presume  that  bis  enemy  slew  him.  If,  however,  we 
should  find  that  be  had  been  killed  by  a  pistol  ball,  then  our 
provisional  bypotbesis  would  be  that  his  enemy  had  killed  him. 
But  if,  pressing  the  investigation  further,  we  should  discover 
that  bis  money  and  watch  had  been  taken,  and  should  also  tind 
tbem  in  the  possession  of  a  stranger  who  could  give  no  account 
of  bis  possession,  our  previous  provisional  hypothesis  would 
be  rejected,  and  we  should  conclude  that  the  stranger  was  the 
murderer. 

§  110.  Verification  of  provisional  hypothesis. — A  working 
hypothesis  can  not   be  allowed  to  take  a  i)lace  in  the  theory 

'  Bain's  Logic,  327. 


88  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  111 

until  it  has  been  tested.  It  will  often  happen  that  many  pro- 
visional hypotheses  will  fall  before  a  vigorous  test.  If  the  hy- 
pothesis does  not  stand  the  test  it  must  be  rejected,  although 
it  may  have  been  a  favorite  one.  A  source  of  error  in  all  in- 
vestigation is  the  tenacity  with  which  men  cling  to  a  theory  or 
hypothesis  of  their  own  construction.  The  reports  furnish 
many  instances  where  cases  have  been  lost  because  counsel 
could  not,  or  would  not,  throw  aside  a  favorite  hypothesis. 
In  a  practical  science  like  the  law  there  is  little  tolerance  of 
fanciful  hypotheses,  and  only  such  as  will  stand  the  severest 
test  will  be  accepted  by  the  courts.  It  is  no  doubt  painful  to 
yield  an  hypothesis  born  of  careful  study,  but  when  the  facts, 
as  they  develop,  disclose  its  unsoundness  it  must  be  cast  aside. 
It  is  not  wise  to  attempt  to  make  the  facts  bend  to  a  provisional 
hypothesis,  unless  it  is  the  only  one  which  will  avail.  When 
this  is  the  case,  then  the  facts  must,  if  possible,  be  molded  to 
fit  the  hypothesis. 

§  111.   Importance  of  provisional  hypothesis  in  investig:at- 

ing  law. — Tlie  provisional  or  working  hypothesis  is  an  im- 
portant factor  in  investigating  matters  of  law  as  well  as  matters 
of  fact.  Investigation  of  the  law  of  a  case  can  only  be  suc- 
cessfully prosecuted — except  when  some  lucky  accident  inter- 
venes^— where  the  mind  of  the  investigator  is  governed  by 
some  definite  purpose  and  seeks  to  attain  a  definite  object.  If 
the  searcher,  at  the  outset,  frames  a  provisional  hypothesis, 
and  then  sets  out  to  find  authority  to  support  it,  he  will  have 
a  guide  throughout  his  exploration.  He  will  certainly  reach 
one  of  two  results,  for  he  will  discover  that  his  provisional  hy- 
pothesis is  or  is  not  the  correct  one.  Even  if  he  acquires  no 
other  knowledge  than  that  his  hypothesis  is  invalid,  this  knowl- 
edge will  have  tlie  merit  of  distinctness,  if  it  has  none  other. 
But  it  is  most  likely  to  point  to  the  true  hypothesis.  Suppose, 
for  example,  the  facts  of  the  case  to  be  these:  The  defendant 
orally  promised  the  plaintiff  to  indemnify  him  against  loss  if 

'  Lufky  accidents  or  conjectures  are     never  merely  luck — there   is  always 
rare  in  law  suib.    "Depend  upon  it,"     some  talent  in  it." 
says  Miss  Austen,  "a  lucky  guess  is 


§  112  THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  89 

he  would  undertake  as  surety  on  the  bail  bond  of  John  Doe. 
Suppose  the  hypothesis  provisionally  assumed  to  be:  This  ver- 
bal contract  is  within  the  statute  of  frauds  and  is  not  enforce- 
able. In  testing  the  hypothesis  it  will  Ix'  fcjund  incorrect; '  but 
an  important  step  of  progress  has  been  made,  for  we  liave  as- 
certained that  the  hypothesis  is  not  sound,  and  therefore,  upon 
a  i)lain,  logical  rule,  conclude  that  the  contradictory  hypothesis 
is  the  true  one.  Take  another  and  somewhat  more  complex 
example:  The  defendant  leased  to  Richard  Roe  a  building. 
Roe  sub-leased  it  to  John  Doe.  The  building  was  negligently 
suffered  to  get  so  much  out  of  repair  as  to  be  unsafe,  and  the 
plaintiff,  in  going  to  a  public  entertainment  held  in  the  build- 
ing, stepped  into  a  hole  and  was  injured.  Here  the  question 
of  law  would  be  as  to  the  party  liable.  If  the  working  hy- 
pothesis be  that  the  defendant  is  liable,  it  would  be  unsound 
because  the  tenant,  and  not  the  landlord,  would  be  liable. ^  But 
although  the  provisional  hypothesis  is  erroneous,  still  it  is  of 
great  practical  benefit,  because  it  brings  out  into  a  clear  light 
one  of  the  great  questions  in  the  case,  and  thus  leads  to  the 
discovery  of  the  governing  principle,  which  is  the  true  hy- 
pothesis that  is  to  be  incorporated  in  the  theory  of  the  case.* 
In  truth,  every  proposition  of  law  is  at  the  first  a  mere  un- 
proved or  provisional  hypothesis.  It  is  not  always  necessary 
to  refer  to  books  to  prove  it,  for  it  is  proved,  and  sometimes 
without  conscious  effort,  by  reference  to  principles  laid  away 
in  the  mind.  Until  verified,  it  is  nevertheless  a  mere  suppo- 
sition, not  entitled  to  be  placed  in  the  theory  of  the  case.  As 
long  as  it  stands  as  a  mere  unproved  assumption  it  is  unsafe 
to  attempt  to  advance  or  to  depend  upon  it. 

§  112.  Search  for  sig^iis. — Ilobbes  quaintly  says:  "The  best 
prophet  is  naturally  the  best  guesser,  and  the  best  guesser  he 
that  is  most  versed  and  studied  in  the  matter  he  guesses  at,  for 
he  hath  the  most  signs  to  guess  by."^     The  more  signs  the  in- 

'  Wood  on  Frauds,  2Sn ;  Anderson  v.  '  Quintilian  supplies  an  example  of 

Spence,  72  Ind.  315.  tlie  use  of  liypothesis.     Inst.  Bk.  V, 

*  Ryan  v.  Wilson,  87  N.  Y.  471.  S.  C.  Chi\p.  x. 

41  Am.  Rep.  384;    Cole  v.  MoKey,  66  *T\w  Leviathan,  Pt.  I.  p.  11. 
Wis.  500,  S.  C.  67  Am.  Rep.  293. " 


90  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  113 

vestigator  discovers  the  swifter  his  conjectures,  and  the  sounder 
his  hypotheses.  Not  only  is  this  search  for  signs  of  great  ben- 
efit in  the  preparation  of  the  case,  but  it  is  also  of  great  as- 
sistance in  the  trial,  for  it  arouses  attention  to  the  points  in  the 
case,  and  enables  the  mind  to  instantly  perceive  and  grasp  all 
tlie  favorable  facts  developed  in  the  progress  of  the  trial.  One 
who  has  thought  intently  upon  a  matter,  and  has  sought  dili- 
gently for  signs  to  enable  him  to  discover  the  true  solution  of 
a  difficulty,  will  catch  and  apply  facts  that  another  would  pass 
almost  unnoticed.  This  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  case  of 
inventors;  they  frame  some  hypothesis,  perhaps  an  erroneous 
one,  and  in  the  course  of  their  experiments  carefully  seize  and 
apply  each  important  fact,  which  one  whose  mind  had  not  been 
thus  prepared  would  not  observe.  The  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents supplies  an  apt  example  in  his  description  of  Goodyear's 
discovery:  "  In  one  of  those  animated  conversations  so  habitual 
to  him,  in  reference  to  his  experiments,  a  piece  of  India  rub- 
ber, combined  with  sulphur,  which  he  held  in  his  hand  as  the 
text  of  all  his  discourses,  was,  by  a  violent  gesture,  thrown 
into  a  burning  stove  near  where  he  was  standing.  When  taken 
out,  after  having  been  subjected  to  a  high  degree  of  heat,  he 
saw — what  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  would  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  all  others — that  a  complete  transformation,  and  that 
an  entirely  new  product,  since  so  felicitously  termed  '  new 
metal  '  was  the  consequence." 

§  113.   Untenable  hypotheses  impair  streng-th  of  theory  — 

It  greatly  impairs  the  strength  of  the  theory  of  the  case  if  im- 
probable or  untenable  hypotheses  are  incorporated  in  it.  The 
evil  result  does  not  end  with  the  overthrow  of  the  untenable 
hypothesis;  it  extends  much  further.  Jurors  are  very  apt  to 
imagine  that  if  there  is  one  worthless  hypothesis  there  must  be 
many  more;  for  men  usually  conclude  that  errors,  like  evil 
things,  "do  mostly  travel  in  great  companies."  Logically,  the 
overthrow  of  an  hypothesis  ought  not  to  extend  beyond  the 
point  directly  affected,  but  jurors  do  not  always  adhere  to  logical 
rules;  on  the  contrary,  if  they  perceive  error  on  one  point  they 


§   114  TIIK    TIIKOIIY    or    THK    CASE.  91 

generally  extend  it  to  many.  It  is  mucli  better,  therefore,  to 
have  a  few  natural  and  probable  hypotheses  than  many  prob- 
able ones  and  some  improbable  ones.  The  mind  of  the  investi- 
gator himself  is  likely  to  be  led  astray  ))y  one  improbable  hy- 
pothesis, although  it  be  in  a  train  with  many  valid  ones,  and 
for  his  own  safety  in  preparing  his  case  it  is  necessary  to  sep- 
arately test  and  verify  each  hypothesis.  If  this  is  not  done 
the  whole  fabric  may  be  imperiled.  "One  devious  step, "says 
Richardson,  "  at  first  setting  out  frequently  leads  a  person  in- 
to a  wilderness  of  error." 

§  114.  Improbiible  hypotheses  impair  force  or  theory. — A 
mere  fanciful  theory  of  the  case,  however  artfully  constructed, 
is  not  a  good  one,  for  such  a  theory  will  lack  the  essential  ele- 
ment of  probability.  A  theory  containing  many  improbable 
hypotheses  is  a  bad  one.  Certainty  is  not  required,  but  there 
must  be  probability.  Lord  Mansfield  said,  in  delivering  one 
of  his  judgments:  "It  is  an  undoubted  truth  that  judges,  in 
forming  their  opinions  of  events  and  in  deciding  upon  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  controverted  facts,  must  be  guided  by  the 
rules  of  probability;  and  as  mathematical  or  absolute  certainty 
is  seldom  to  be  attained  in  human  affairs,  reason  and  public 
utility  require  that  judges  and  all  mankind  in  forming  their 
opinions  of  the  truth  of  facts  should  be  regulated  by  the  superior 
number  of  probabilities  on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  "^ 

§  115.  Arrangement  of  facts  in  theory. — The  probability  of 
a  theory  depends  upon  the  details  almost  as  much  as  upon  its 
general  frame,  for  one  improbable  circumstance  may  break 
down  the  whole  structure.  The  skillful  selection  and  arrange- 
ment of  details,  so  that  one  shall  naturally  seem  to  follow  an- 
other, and  all  unite  in  establishing  one  central  conclusion, 
makes  a  theory  impregnable.  It  is,  therefore,  of  no  little  im- 
portance that  the  facts  be  made  to  follow  in  natural  order;  that 
is,  as  if  the  one  naturally  resulted  from  the  other  without  ex- 
trinsic aid.     In  this  order  they  must  be  lodged  in  the  mind  of 

'Theory  of  Presumptive  Proof,  62;  Biirrill's  Circumstantial  Ev.,  23; 
City  V.  Hudnut,  112  Ind.  542^57. 


92  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  116 

tlie  advocate,  so  that  when  they  emerge  in  the  course  of  the 
development  of  the  theory  they  shall  appear  to  grow  out  of 
each  other  without  the  appearance  of  having  heen  brought  to- 
gether by  a  preconceived  plan.  As  the  facts  come  out  in  evi- 
dence so  will  they  find  lodgment  in  the  minds  of  the  jurors, 
and  if  they  grow  out  of  each  other  they  will  take  form  there  as 
compact  and  strong  as  a  "  Roman  legion."  If  jurors  are  com- 
pelled to  collect  together  disconnected  facts  and  arrange  them 
in  their  minds,  they  will  get  obscure  and  confused  ideas  and 
will  lose  sight  of  many  important  facts,  as  well  as  entirely  fail 
to  recognize  the  relation  existing  between  a  series  of  facts. 

§  lie.  Theory  should  show  natural  relation  of  facts. — It  is 
scarcely  less  important  that  the  relation  between  facts  be  kept 
prominently  in  view  than  that  the  facts  themselves  be  made 
conspicuous,  for  relation  adds  strength,  and  often  makes  facts 
convincing  by  the  probability  with  which  it  clothes  them.  It 
is  not  to  be  expected  that  jurors  in  tlie  swiftly  passing  hours  of 
a  trial  can  establish  the  relation  between  facts.  To  do  this 
work  skillfully  and  well  requires  careful  deliberation  and  a 
disciplined  mind.  The  relation  between  a  series  of  facts,  and 
its  importance,  will  be  quickly  apprehended  when  pointed  out; 
but  it  sometimes  requires  a  keen  vision  to  clearly  note  the  re- 
lation and  justly  point  it  out.  The  probability  of  a  theory  is 
the  great  end  to  be  attained,  and  one  of  the  cliief  things  in 
clothing  it  with  probability  is  that  of  clearly  and  strongly  es- 
tablishing a  natural  relation  between  the  facts,  and  of  unfold- 
ing them  to  the  jury  so  that  they  may  perceive  that  one  grows 
out  of  another,  as  though  their  development  could  take  place 
in  no  other  way. 

§  117.  Subsidiary  facts. — It  is  seldom  that  a  case  arises  in 
which  the  relation  between  a  series  of  facts  is  not  one  of  the 
most  important  elements  in  establishing  probability;  but  there 
may  be  cases  where  a  single  fact  rules  and  decides  the  contro- 
versy, and  in  such  a  case  all  that  is  needed  is  to  make  that  fact 
so  conspicuous  that  it  can  not  be  overlooked,  so  that  the  simpler 


§   118  THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  93 

the  theory  the  better.  The  instances  are  few  in  which  there  is 
no  necessity  for  establishing  and  developing  a  relation  between 
the  facts  in  order  to  make  the  theory  probable.  Error  is  not 
unfrequently  committed  in  assuming  that  one  or  two  material 
facts  so  fully  control  the  case  as  to  need  no  aid  from  subsidiary 
facts,  and  to  avoid  this  error  it  is  necessary  to  carefully  con- 
sider the  probable  effect  of  these  facts  as  well  as  the  force  of 
facts  that  will  probably  be  brought  against  them.  It  is  natural, 
for  instance,  to  assume  that  one  seen  with  a  pistol  in  his  hand 
near  the  dead  body  of  a  person  slain  by  a  pistol  shot  is  the 
murderer,  and  yet  it  would  be  hazardous  to  depend  on  that  cir- 
cumstance alone,  for  it  might  be  explained  on  many  hypoth- 
eses; but  if  to  that  circumstance  be  added  evidence  of  previous 
threats  on  the  })art  of  the  accused,  or  evidence  that  he  bore  a 
grudge  against  the  deceased,  the  guilt  would  be  so  probable  as 
to  render  conviction  certain.  This  is  a  very  simple  case,  de- 
void of  all  complexity,  and  yet  it  illustrates  (what,  indeed,  is 
so  plain  as  to  scarcely  need  illustration)  the  importance  of  se- 
curing subsidiar}'  facts,  and  so  arranging  them  that  their  rela- 
tion shall  clearly  appear,  that  it  shall  seem  the  only  natural 
one,  and  that  it  shall  so  bind  the  series  of  facts  together  that 
they  will  constitute  a  line  leading  to  the  desired  conclusion. 

§  118.  Principal  facts  supported  by  minor  facts. — It  will  be 
found  that  by  far  the  greater  number  of  cases  are  complex, 
composed  of  principal  facts  surrounded  by  minor  ones,  and 
that  the  strength  of  the  case  depends,  not  so  much  upon  these 
principal  facts  alone,  as  upon  the  support  given  them  by  the 
probabilities  created  by  establishing  and  developing  the  rela- 
tion of  the  minor  facts.  It  is  not  possible  to  accurately  deter- 
mine the  relation  between  facts  without  looking  at  them  from 
opposite  sides,  for  it  very  often  happens  that  contestants  will 
claim  with  plausibility  that  the  relation  of  the  minor  fact  is 
such  as  to  support  their  respective  contentions.  It  is  often 
claimed  for  the  defense  in  criminal  trials  that  the  malig- 
nity of  the  homicide  shows  insanity,  while  on  the  part  of  the 
State  the  same  fact  is  relied  on  as  establishing  one  of  the  prin- 


94  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  119 

cipal  elements  of  the  crime,  and  the  fact  establishes  one  or  the 
other  of  these  hypotheses  according  to  its  relation  to  the  other 
facts.  Thus,  if  it  should  appear  that  the  previous  relations 
between  the  slayer  and  the  slain  were  those  of  love  and  affec- 
tion, the  ferocity  of  the  crime  would  tend  in  a  strong  degree  to 
establish  the  probability  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  defense;  but, 
if  it  should  appear  that  hatred  and  ill-will  existed,  then  the 
ferocity  manifested  in  the  manner  of  committing  the  homicide 
would  strongly  tend  to  support  the  hypothesis  of  the  prosecu- 
tion. The  illustration  given  is  a  simple  one,  but  in  practice 
few  such  simple  cases  are  encountered,  for,  in  the  great  ma- 
jority of  cases,  the  facts  are  complex,  the  gaps  unfilled  by  pos- 
itive testimony  are  numerous,  and  the  details  spread  over  a 
great  field,  so  that  no  probable  theory  can  be  formed  without 
carefully  establishing  and  developing  a  natural  sequence  be- 
tween the  facts. 

§  119.  Theory  must  inspire  belief.— The  validity  and  value 
of  a  theory  depend  upon  its  power  to  inspire  a  belief  that  it  is 
true,  for  what  creates  a  belief  of  truth  is  accepted  as  a  satis- 
factory solution  of  the  controverted  questions  of  fact  in  the 
contests  of  the  forum.  Belief,  in  matters  of  law,  is  conviction, 
since  demonstration  can  not  be  attained.  What  men  thoroughly 
believe  they  accept  as  true.  A  theory  which  so  strongly  com- 
mends itself  to  the  judgment  of  men  as  to  create  a  strong  be- 
lief of  its  truth  is  the  path  to  success.  Knowledge  in  all 
matters  not  susceptible  of  demonstration  is,  at  bottom,  belief. 
Men  think,  and  not  unreasonably,  that  they  have  attained 
knowledge,  when  they  have,  in  fact,  attained  a  settled  belief. 
The  child  does  not  doubt  its  mother's  love,  and  yet  no  higher 
certainty  of  its  existence  can  be  attained  than  a  belief  that  it 
exists.  Dr.  McCosh  has  some  very  sound  observations  upon 
this  subject,  and  supplies  this  apt  quotation  from  Goethe:  ''  I 
receive  mathematics  as  the  most  useful  and  sublime  science  as 
long  as  they  are  applied  in  their  proper  place,  but  I  can  not 
commend  the  misuse  of  them  in  matters  which  do  not  belong 
to  their  sphere,  and  in  which,  noble  science  as  they  are,  they 


§  120  THK    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  95 

seem  to  be  mere  nonsense;  as  if,  forsooth,  things  only  exist 
when  they  can  he  mathematically  demonstrated.  It  would  be 
foolish  for  a  man  not  to  believe  in  his  mistress'  love  because 
she  could  not  prove  it  to  him  mathematically.  She  can  mathe- 
matically prove  her  dowry,  but  not  her  love."^ 

§  120.  How  to  secure  belief. — li  the  hypulheses  which  form 
part  of  the  theory,  and  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest,  are 
such  as  awaken  a  firm  and  decided  belief,  there  is  conviction. 
To  secure  this  belief  in  the  right  and  justice  of  his  client's  cause 
is  the  leading  pur})ose  of  the  skillful  advocate,  and  this  purpose 
leads  him  to  so  construct  his  thcoi-y  that  men  will  believe  it. 
This  is  done  by  making  it  appear  that  the  jurors,  had  they 
been  in  the  situation  of  the  witnesses,  would  have  seen  what  they 
saw,  would  have  testified  as  they  testified,  and  would  have 
acted  as  the  parties  are  represented  to  have  acted.  "As  in 
water  face  answereth  to  face,  so  the  heart  of  man  to  man,"  says 
the  proverb;  and  men  believe  what  they  suppose  it  likely  they 
would  themselves  have  said  or  done,  but  reject  that  which  it 
seems  to  them  they  would  not  have  done  had  they  been  situated 
as  the  parties  were, and  have  been  of  like  character  and  disposition . 
If  the  jurors  are  convinced  that  a  man  is  wicked,  then  they  are 
ready  to  believe  that  he  has  done  a  wicked  deed;  but  if  they  are 
convinced  that  he  is  good,  they  are  slow  to  believe  evil  of  him. 
This  is  one  great  reason  why  character  is  so  often  of  importance 
to  a  person  accused  of  crime;  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
witness  whose  demeanor  shows  him  to  be  honest  so  often  carries 
conviction  to  the  minds  of  the  jurors  as  against  many  witnesses. 

§  121.  Illiistrative  theories. — A  theory  which  is  unbelieva- 
ble is  a  bad  one.  Of  such  a  theory.  Bacon  supplies  an  apt  and 
an  amusing  example  in  the  story  of  the  thief  who  averred, 
"That  passing  over  several  grounds  about  his  lawful  occasions, 
he  was  pursued  close  by  a  fierce  mastiff  dog,  and  so  was  forced 
to  save  himself  by  leaping  over  a  hedge,  which,  being  of  an 
agile  body,  he  effected;  and  in  leaping,  a  mare  standing  on  the 
other  side  of  the  hedge,  he  leaped  upon  her  back,  who  running 

'Logic,  101. 


96  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  121 

furiously  away  with  him,  he  could  not  by  any  means  stop  her 
until  the  next  town,  in  which  town  the  owner  of  the  mare  lived, 
and  there  he  was  taken  and  arraigned."     The  theory  framed 
by  Dickens'  great  criminal  lawyer,  Jaggers,  in  defense  of   the 
woman  who  afterward  became  his  housekeeper,  is  an  example 
of  one  that  men  would  readily  believe  true,  because  consistent 
with  experience.^    A  very  ingenious  and  well-constructed  theory 
is  that  of  DeQuincey  in  behalf  of  Judas  Iscariot.     It  is,  indeed, 
a  marvelous  exhibition  of    skill  in  constructing  and  maintain- 
ing a  theory  that  goes  far  to  secure  belief,  although  based  up- 
on a  very  slender  foundation  of    fact."-^     The  theory  of  the  de- 
fense in  the  Webster  case  is  an  example  of  one  lacking  the 
virtue  of   probability.     In  that  case  the  principal  hypothesis, 
and  the  one  which  really  constituted  the  theory  of  the  defense, 
was,  that  Dr.   Parkman  was  killed  after  leaving  the  medical 
college,  by  some  person  unknown  to  the  prosecutor  or  the  de- 
fendant, and  his  body  carried  into  the  rooms  occupied  by  Web- 
ster, and  there  disposed  of    and  concealed.     This  was  in  itself 
a  highly  improbable  theory,  and  when  applied  to  the  facts  de- 
veloped by  the  evidence  its  improbability  was  greatly  increased. 
A  far  more  probable  theory  for  the  defense  was  that  suggested 
by  Choate,  which  we  have  already  stated.     The  theory  adopted 
by  the  prosecution  was  much  more  probable,  and  was  simple 
and  natural  in  its  construction  and  development.     That  theory 
was  that  the  deceased,  between  two  known  hours  of  a  designated 
day,  entered  the  lecture  rooms  of  Professor  Webster;  that  there 
was  an  interview  between  the  two  men;  that  Parkman  never 
left  the  rooms  alive;  that  the  parties  never  separated;  that  Park- 
man  was    then  and  there  slain,  the  remains  disposed  of   by 
Webster,  and  by  him  kept  concealed  until  their  discovery  the 

^  Great  Expectations,  Chap,  xviii.  John  surprisingly  strong.  Its  rich 
*  Works  of  DeQuincey,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  vein  of  humor  detracts  somewhat,  of 
223.  Another  admirable  piece  of  work  course,  from  its  effectiveness  as  a  de- 
is  that  of  Mr.  Birrell  in  his  defense  of  fense  of  a  man  of  many  infirmities, 
Falstaff.  The  essay  to  which  we  refer  but  it  does  not  conceal  the  ingenuity 
will  bear  close  study,  for  its  hypotheses  of  the  hypotheses,  nor  the  keenness  of 
are  ingenious,  its  use  of  details  is  adroit  the  analysis.  Obiter  Dicta,  200. 
and  its  array  of  facts  favoraVjle  to  Sir 


§  122  THE   THEORY    OF   THE    CASE.  97 

week  after  the  murder. ^  Cicero's  theory  of  Milo's  defense  pos- 
sesses ill  a  high  degree  the  virtue  of  probability,  and  had  it  been 
developed  to  the  judges  Milo  would  most  likely  have  been  ac- 
quitted. The  theory  of  the  defense  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Wharton, 
iiidifted  for  the  murder,  by  administering  poison,  of  General 
Ketchum,  was  that  he  died  from  the  effects  of  laudanum  with 
which  he  secretly  dosed  himself;  and  so  probable  seemed  this 
theory  to  the  jury  that  it  did  much  to  secure  a  verdict  of  ac- 
quittal, although  subsequent  developments  in  medical  science 
tend  strongly  to  show  that  neither  the  hypothesis  of  the  prose- 
cution nor  that  of  the  defense  was  the  correct  one,  but  that 
death  resulted  from  a  disease  then  comparatively  unknown  to 
the  physicians  of  that  part  of  the  country. 

§  122.  Consequences  to  which  theory  leads  to  be  consid- 
^Yed. — The  consequences  to  which  a  theory  will  lead  is  a  mat- 
ter for  careful  thought,  for  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  jurors 
are  more  often  controlled  by  their  judgment  of  the  consequences 
to  which  a  course  of  action  will  lead  than  by  any  other  one 
thing.  Jurors  care  little  for  consistency  or  for  logic  in  com- 
parison with  consequences  which  seem  to  them  to  be  evil,  and 
they  will  be  slow  to  follow  any  line  that  appears  to  them  to 
lead  to  bad  results,  but  quick  to  follow  one  that  seems  to  lead 
to  good  results.  They  may  not  always  take  a  just  view  of  con- 
sequences; they  do,  indeed,  often  go  astray  in  this  particular, 
but  they  always  keep  a  keen  eye  upon  the  probable  conse- 
quences of  a  verdict.  Nor  do  courts  refuse  to  look  to  conse- 
quences. Thus,  in  one  case  it  was  said:  "Let  us  test  the 
principle  now  involved  by  a  more  extreme  case  than  the  one 
before  us,  but  which  will  be  experiment  inn  crucis.  If  we  can 
show  that  a  principle  logically  carried  out  leads  to  an  absurdity, 
it  is  conclusive  against  it."^  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  the 
course  of  one  of  his  opinions,  uses  this  language:  "And  what 
would  be  the  results  of  this  doctrine  of  implied  contracts  on  the 
part  of  the  states,  and  of  property  in  a  line  of  travel  by  a  cor- 

'  Bemis'  Report  of  Professor  Web-  « Palairet's  Appeal,  67  Pa.  St.  479, 
eter's  Trial,  I'ST,  288.  S.  C.  5  Am.  Rep.  450. 

7 


98  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  123 

poration,  if  it  should  now  be  sanctioned  by  this  court?  To 
what  results  would  it  lead  us?"^  It  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  fun- 
damental maxims  of  jurisprudence  that,  ''An  argument  drawn 
from  inconvenience  is  forcible  in  law. ' '  ^  Judge  Holmes  presses 
this  principle  very  far,  for  he  says:  "The  life  of  the  law  has 
not  been  logic,  but  has  been  experience.  "'"^  If  judges  yield  so 
much  to  experience,  it  can  not  be  doubted  that  it  will  sway 
jurors,  who  care  little  for  abstract  principles  and  less  for  pre- 
cedents. 

§  123.  Theory  should  be  consistent  with  experience. — Jurors 
yield  to  their  own  experience  rather  than  to  the  views  of  other 
men.  They  will  often  construct  for  themselves  theories  irre- 
spective of  the  law  as  charged  by  the  court.  The}^  will  fre- 
quently be  guided  only  by  their  experience  in  determining 
what  the  result  of  their  verdict  is  likely  to  be,  and  they  will 
reluctantly  follow  any  other  guide,  if,  indeed,  they  will  follow 
it  at  all.  This  consideration  is  one  that  should  control  in  no 
small  degree  the  construction  of  the  theory  upon  which  counsel 
place  the  cause  of  their  client.  If  the  mental  characteristics  of 
the  jurors  can  be  ascertained  in  advance,  it  is  prudent,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  mold  the  theory  to  them;  but  as  this  can  seldom 
be  done,  it  is  necessary  to  secure  such  a  jury  as  will  readily 
apj)reciate  and  adoj^t  the  theory  constructed.  By  the  term 
' '  experience ' '  we  do  not  mean  actual  knowledge  derived  from 
things  really  known  to  the  jury,  but  knowledge  resulting  from 
their  habits  of  thought  and  course  of  life.  Archbishop  Whately 
says  of  the  word  "experience":  "The  word,  in  its  strict 
sense,  applies  to  what  has  occurred  within  a  person's  own 
knowledge.  Experience  in  this  sense  relates  to  the  past  alone. 
Thus  it  is  that  a  man  knows  by  experience  what  sufferings  he 
has  undergone  in  some  disease.*     More  frequently  the  word  is 

'Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  ^  Common  Law,  1. 

Bridge,  11   Peters,  420;    Lake  Shore  * "  How    else,"    says    Sir    Arthur 

&  Mich.  So.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cin.,  W^.  &  M.  Helps,  "  is  knowledge  to  be  acquired, 

Rj'.  Co.,  116  Ind.  578.  unless  by  making  men  such  as  gods, 

"^  Broom's  Legal  Maxims,  184 ;  Ram's  enabling  them  to  understand  without 

Legal  Judgments,  113;    The  Illinois,  experience?" 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Fix,  53  HI.  131. 


§   124  THE    TIIKOKY    OF    THE    CASE.  99 

used  to  denote  that  judgment  which  i.s  derived  from  experience 
in  tlie  primary  sense,  by  reasoning  from  tluit  in  common  witli 
otlier  (hita.  Thus,  a  man  may  assert  on  the  ground  of  experi- 
ence that  he  was  cured  of  a  disorder  by  such  a  medicine,  that 
that  medicine  is  generally  beneficial  in  that  disorder.  It  is  in 
this  sense  only  that  experience  can  be  applied  to  the  future,  or, 
which  comes  to  the  same  tiling,  to  any  general  fact,  e.  g.,  when 
it  is  said  that  we  know  by  experience  that  water  exposed  to  a 
certain  temperature  will  freeze."*  It  is  on  this  experience  that 
many  of  the  distinctions  and  many  of  the  rules  of  law  are 
founded,  and  the  verdicts  of  juries  almost  always  based. 
Judge  Holmes  says:  "  The  distinctions  of  the  law  are  founded 
on  experience,  not  on  logic.  It,  therefore,  does  not  make  the 
dealings  of  men  dependent  on  mathematical  certainty."^ 

§  124.  Appeal  to  experience. — It  is  possible  that  the  learned 
author  carries  his  doctrines  somewhat  too  far,  but  it  is  unde- 
niably true  that  experience  is  a  chief  factor  in  all  legal  con- 
tests. There  are,  indeed,  many  cases  where  the  controversy  is 
left  almost  entirely  to  be  determined  by  the  experience  of  the 
triers.-^  In  matters  of  law,  the  experience  which  is  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  the  rule  of  conduct  can  not  be  that  of  the  individual 
judge,  but  it  must  be  that  found  in  the  declarations  of  the  Leg- 
islature, the  decisions  of  the  courts,  and  the  books  of  writers 
of  acknowledged  authority.*  The  earlier  English  judges  were 
much  more  under  the  influence  of  Aristotle  and  his  followers, 
the  schoolmen,  who  narrowed  his  doctrines  and  dwarfed  his 
principles,  than  the  modern  judges,  and  the  consequence  is 
that  they  often  sacrificed  substantial  rights  to  subtle  and  sense- 
less distinctions.'^  The  law  has  been  broadened  and  liberalized 
by  the  practical  thinkers  who  have  been  influenced  more  by  the 
teachings  of  experience  than  by  the  formal  logic  of  the  school- 
men.    But,  after  all,  the  experience  which  guides  judges  is, 

'  AVhately's  Logic,  Appendix  V.  of  a  system  of  jmisprndenoe composed 

*  Common  Law,  312.  of  partii-iilar  instances   and  destitute 

'  Holmes  Common  Law,  o6,  147, 149,  of  tixed  principles.     Ancient  Law,  76. 
152,  157,  158,  162.  *  De  Laudibus  Legum  Anglie,  7,  note 

*Mr.  Mayne  clearly  shows  the  evils  of  ^Ir.  Amos. 


100  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §   125 

for  the  most  part,  that  transmitted  to  them  from  the  past,  and  it 
is  well  that  it  is  so,  since  men  often  imagine  that  they  are  taught 
b}'  their  experience  when,  in  fact,  they  are  influenced  by  very 
different  causes.  While  this  is  true,  yet  an  appeal  to  experience 
is  almost  always  a  strong  one  in  forensic  disputes. 

§  125.   Theory  skould  be  clear  and  logical.— The  theory  of  a 
case  should  be  clear  and  harmonious,  for  if  there  is  obscurity 
and  conflict  it  can  neither  be  effectively  developed  nor  strongly 
presented  to  the  triers  of  the  cause.     Clearness  is  secured  by  a 
just  method  of  arrangement,  giving  to  each  particular  fact  and 
principle  of  law  the  prominence  whicli  its  importance  merits, 
and  preventing  it  from  being  obscured  or  Inddcn  by  other  facts 
or  principles.    Facts  must  not  be  jumbled  together  in  disorder, 
one  left  lying  over  in  the  way  of  another;   nor  must  principles 
of  law  be  thrown  together  in  a  mere  huddle.  The  theory  should 
be  so  arranged  that  the  facts  and  principles  may  be  marshaled 
in  logical  order,  and  their  development  be  not  unlike  the  march 
of  a  column  of  well-disciplined  soldiers.     A  straggling,  dis- 
jointed theory  is  as  little  likely  to  prevail  as  a  force  of  strag- 
glers matched  against  a  body  of  disciplined  troops.     There  are, 
as  we  have  already  suggested,  two  principal  elements   in  all 
well  constructed  theories,  the  law  and  the  facts,  and  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  theory  these  must  be  kept  separate,  yet  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  form  parts  of  one  harmonious  system.  The  modes 
of  trying  questions  of  law  and  questions  of  fact  are  different, 
and  the  mode  of  presenting  them  is  also  essentially  different, 
so  that  if  they  are  jumbled  together   confusion   is  produced. 
Where  there  is  confusion  there  is  almost  always  weakness,  al- 
though there  are  cases  where  some  of  the  weak  places  may  be 
concealed  by  confusing  the  surroundings;  and  there  are  other 
cases  where  the  strong  points  of  an  adversary  may  be  parried 
by  obscuring  them.     It  is,  however,  the  safest  general  rule  to 
keep  the  interdependent  parts  of  law  and  facts  from  so  blend- 
ing as  to  prevent  tlieir  clear  perception  and  just  use.     If  this 
is    not    done,    the  theory  will  not    be  a    safe  one,    and    diffi- 


§   12G  THE    TIIKOKY    OK    TIIK    CASK.  101 

culties  will  be  encountered  at  every  important  step  in  the  prog- 
ress of  the  cause. ^ 

§  12(5.  Matters  of  law  and  matters  of  fact  should  be  kept 
separate. — The  cont'u.siuu  of  matters  of  law  with  matters  of  fact 
interferes  with  the  work  of  arraying  and  introducing  evidence, 
makes  it  difficult  to  projierly  prepare  instructions,  and  very 
greatly  embarrasses  the  advocate  in  presenting  his  case  in  ar- 
gument. Cases,  as  tlic  l)ooks  sliow,  are  often  lost  by  a  failure 
to  so  separate  the  two  elements  of  law  and  fact  that  the  one  can 
be  clearly  presented  to  the  court,  and  the  other  to  the  jury.  It 
is,  indeed,  not  always  easy  to  discriminate  matters  of  law  from 
matters  of  fact,  but  it  is  a  work  which  must  be  done,  and  well 
done,  or  no  adequate  and  sound  theory  can  be  constructed. 

§  127.  Presumptions. — Presumptions  are  important  factors 
in  forensic  contests,  and  the  theory  of  the  case  can  not  be  well 
constructed  without  giving  due  weight  and  place  to  presump- 
tions, both  of  law  and  of  fact.  Presumptions  of  law  are,  of 
course,  of  much  wider  sweep  than  presumptions  of  fact,  and 
arc,  in  effect,  rules  of  law  requiring  that  from  particular  facts 
particular  inferences  shall  be  made.  These  presumptions  con- 
fine the  inference  to  a  designated  conclusion,  and  neither  the 
court  nor  the  jury  will  be  allowed  to  disregard  them.-  They 
generally  have  the  force  and  effect  of  a  prima  facie  case;-^  but 
they  will  not  always  supply  proof  of  a  substantive  fact,*  and  a 
presumption  can  not  be  based  upon  a  presumption.-^' 

§  128.  Use  and  avoidance  of  presumptions.— It  is  not  very 
difficult  for  one  who  has  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  an 
adequate  acquaintance  with  the  rules  of  evidence,  to  determine, 
in  preparing  his  theory  of  the  case,  what  presumptions  of    law 

'  Darling  r.  AVestmoreland,  52  N.  H.  gomery  v.  Wasem,  116  Ind.  343,  3oo; 

401,  S.  C.  13  Am.  Rep.  55,  p.  (53;  Gray  Cleveland,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  i'.  Newell,  lO-t 

V.  Jackson,  51  N.  H.  9,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Ind.  2(54. 

Rep.  1.  *  United  States  r.  Ross,  02  U.  S.  281. 

2  Best's  Principles  of  Evidence,  §§42,  ^  Manning  r.  Ins.  Co.,  100  U.  S.  693, 

304 ;  Justice  r.  Lang,  52  N.  Y.  323.  698. 

» Bates  V.  Pricket,  5  Ind.  22;  Mont- 


102  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  129 

he  can  employ  to  sustain  his  cause,  and  what  may  be  employed 
against  him.  If  the  adverse  presumption  is  one  that  can  not 
be  rebutted,  then,  if  the  theory  can  not  be  so  framed  as  to  avoid 
it,  the  case  is  hopeless.  But  many  of  the  conclusive  presump- 
tions of  law  may  be  avoided  by  a  skillfully  constructed  theory. 
If  the  j)resumption  of  law  is  rebuttable,  then  the  better  course 
is  to  make  provision  for  rebutting  it.  There  are,  however, 
cases,  where  a  rebuttable  presumption  maybe  entirely  avoided, 
and  it  is  sometimes  prudent  to  make  provision  both  for  avoid- 
ing it  and  for  rebutting  it  by  proving  facts  that  make  it  ineffect- 
ive. But  where  the  combination  of  the  two  methods  will  prob- 
ably produce  material  inconsistency,  it  is  better  to  adopt  a 
single  method  and  strictly  adhere  to  it,  for  inconsistency  is  an 
infirmity  that  greatly  weakens  a  theory. 

§  129.  Presumptions  of  fact. — Presumptions  of  fact  can  not 
always  be  fully  anticipated,  but,  when  anticipated,  they  are 
much  more  easily  disposed  of  than  presumptions  of  law.  Pre- 
sumptions of  fact  arise  from  facts,  and  are,  in  reality,  mere  in- 
ferences of  fact  naturally  arising  from  proved  or  admitted  facts. 
"Presumptions  of  fact,"  it  was  said  in  one  case,  "are  but  in- 
ferences from  other  facts  and  circumstances,  and  should  be 
made  upon  the  common  principles  of  induction. "  ^  In  another 
case  it  was  said:  "  Presumptions  of  fact  are  at  best  but  mere 
arguments,  and  are  to  be  judged  by  the  common  and  received 
tests  of  the  truth  of  propositions  and  the  validity  of  arguments."^ 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  presumptions  of  fact  can  not  be 
fully  perceived  at  the  time  the  theory  of  the  case  is  prepared. 
But  by  laying  out  in  the  mind  the  whole  case,  with  its  prominent 
features  and  its  minute  facts,  one  may  be  able  to  conjecture 
with  a  fair  degree  of  certainty  what  presumptions  of  fact  will 
arise,  and  he  who  does  not  do  this  work  with  scrupulous  care 
will  find  many  a  jolt  and  shock,  if,  indeed,  he  does  not  fare 
worse,  in  developing  the  case.  With  the  facts,  and  all  the 
facts,  the  principal  as  well  as  the  minor  ones,  fully  and  dis- 
tinctly in  his  mind,  one  may  look  along  the  lines  the  case  must 

»  O'Gara  v.  Eisenhour,  38  N.  Y.  296.        *  Lawhornw.  Carter,ll  Bush.  (Kj'.)7. 


§  130  THK    TIIKOKY    OF    THE    CASE.  103 

traverse,  and  with  mucli  success  conjecture  what  presumption 
will  arise  at  tiiis  point  and  what  at  that;  and  if  this  work  is 
thorouglily  done,  pi-ovision  may  be  made  for  making  good  use 
of  favorable  presumptions,  and  for  avoiding,  weakening,  or 
destroying  those  that  are  adverse.  This  work  can  not  be  well 
done  unless  the  man  who  undertakes  it  knows  the  materials  he 
has  at  command,  the  grounds  over  which  the  contest  will  be 
waged,  the  ililticulties  he  must  encounter,  and  the  opposition 
he  will  meet.  Some  of  these  things  it  is  his  own  fault  if  he 
does  not  fully  know.  The  force  of  the  opposition  he  can  only 
conjecture,  but  conjecture  it  he  must  as  best  he  can.  If  he 
must  err  in  this  conjecture,  the  error  will  seldom  do  harm  if  itbe 
one  attributing  too  much  strengtli  to  the  enemy,  but  it  may  be 
a  very  serious  one  if  the  strength  of  tlie  enemy  is  underrated. 

§  130.  Importance  of  presumptions. — Presumptions  are  of 
more  weight  than  careless  thinkers  attribute  to  them.  He  who 
can  make  the  presumptions  fight  on  his  side,  even  if  they  are 
no  more  than  presumptions  of  fact,  is  almost  sure  to  be  the 
victor.  Cases  are  often  lost  and  won  on  presumptions.  In- 
deed, in  many  cases  the  contest  is  a  battle  of  presumptions.^ 
A  theory  that  provides  for  creating  presumptions,  and  arrays 
them  in  the  strongest  positions,  is  a  strong  one.  It  is  strong 
because  it  well  disposes  of  the  forces  at  command;  since  in  do- 
ing the  work  he  who  does  it  acquires  a  knowledge  of  the  case, 
and  knows  the  points  of  strength  and  weakness,  knows  where 
ambushes  are  to  be  expected  and  how  they  are  to  be  avoided. 
In  more  ways  than  one  is  benefit  derived  from  a  close  study  of 
the  presumptions  which  will  arise  as  the  case  is  unfolded 

§  131.  Defective  theories. — Thin  spun  theories  will  not  do; 
there  must  be  facts  from  which  the  presumptions  naturally 
arise,  as  effect  follows  cause.  But  it  is  better  to  expend  in- 
genuity in  conjecturing  what  presumptions  will  arise,  even 
though  the  conjectures  be  unsubstantial,  than  to  construct  a 
theory  without  looking  along  the  line  and  endeavoring  to  con- 

'The  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Thompson,  107  Iml.  442. 


104  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  131 

jecture  what  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  the  facts  as  they 
emerge  from  the  evidence.  It  is  well,  however,  not  to  permit 
a  favorite  hypothesis  to  become  so  influential  as  to  exclude 
others,  stronger  and  more  probable,  that  come  into  view  as  the 
case  progresses.  Men  often  err  in  obstinately  attempting  to  es- 
tablish a  favorite  hypothesis.^  The  verification  of  the  theory 
is  the  last  work  to  be  done  prior  to  embodying  it  in  the  plead- 
ings.^ This  work  demands  sound  judgment  and  close  study. 
Every  step  should,  if  possible,  be  verified  by  an  appeal  to  the 
facts,  to  the  authorities  and  to  reason.  The  theory  will,  in  the 
progress  of  the  trial,  be  rudely  assailed,  and  if  there  be  a  weak 
spot  in  it,  whether  in  the  element  of  fact  or  of  law,  it  will  be 
exposed.  It  is  a  sound  rule,  insisted  upon  by  all  the  writers 
upon  advocacy  or  kindred  subjects,  never  to  underrate  the  power 
of  your  adversary.  It  is  unsafe  to  leave  a  single  part  of  the 
theory  unverified.  Things  that  appear  strong  at  the  first  in- 
spection are  often  found  weak  on  a  second  investigation. 
Writers  on  rhetorical  subjects  inform  us  that  wdiat  seems  per- 
fect when  read  while  the  mind  is  ' '  warmed  by  the  act  of  creat- 
ing "  seems  weak  and  imperfect  when  examined  after  the  mind 
has  cooled.  So  it  is  of  a  theory;  when  the  mind  is  warmed  by 
the  creative  act  no  imperfections  are  discovered,  but  when  this 
warmth  has  passed  away  the  cool  judgment  detects  and  exposes 
many  weak  spots.  Even  when  the  mind  has  cooled  it  is  not 
always  easy  for  it  to  perceive  the  weak  places  in  a  thing  of  its 
own  creation.  Men  cling  to  theories  of  their  own  invention 
long  after  others  have  perceived  their  utter  unsoundness 

^  The  "  Country  Parson,"  in  his  es-  form  in  the  pleadings,  since  the  issue 
say  on  "Screws,"  declares  that  most  framed  by  them  determines  the  scope 
men  have  "a  twist"  in  their  mental  of  the  judicial  investigation.  A  flnd- 
make  up  that  causes  them  to  cling  to  ing  or  verdict  entirely  outside  of  the 
theories  of  their  own  construction,  issues  is  valueless  when  properly  as- 
even  after  their  absurdity  has  been  sailed.  Brenner  v.  Bigelow,  8  Kan. 
demonstrated,  and  Montaigne,  in  his  496;  Mays  v.  Foster,  2(5  Kan.  518; 
essay  on  "Vain  Subtleties,"  calls  at-  Newbyv.  Myers,  44  Kan.  477;  Thomas 
tention  to  the  same  peculiarity  in  hu-  v.  Dale,  86  Ind.  435;  Boardman  ^j. 
man  nature.  Griffin,  52  Ind.  101. 

'  The  theory  must  be  given  effective 


§  132  THK    THKORY    OK    TlfK    CASE.  105 

§  132.  Theory  should  be  invuliK'niblc. — Th-c  advocate,  of  all 
men,  needs  to  be  caiclul  to  leave  no  vulnerable  places;  for  the 
keen  eyes  of  his  adversary  will  leave  no  weak  place  undiscov- 
ered, and  wlion  discovered,  then,  be  sure,  a  thrust  will  follow 
swift  and  strong.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  advocate  in 
constructing  his  theory  is  very  likely  to  be  deceived.  But  not 
so  his  adversary.  He,  least  of  all  men,  is  likely  to  be  misled, 
for  he  is  the  enemy  of  the  theory,  and  all  his  powers  are  bent 
upon  discovering  the  weak  places.  His  work  is  that  of  de- 
struction, not  of  construction. 

§  133.   Contests  of  forum  likened  to  naval  eno:ao:ements. — 

Writers  have  again  and  again,  as  we  have  said,  likened  the 
contests  of  the  forum  to  those  of  war.  There  is,  as  has  been 
noted,  a  close  resemblance,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that  in 
the  opinions  and  in  the  books  we  find  terms  taken  from  the  art 
of  war.  Closely  as  the  legal  contest  resembles  those  of  military 
campaigns,  it  resembles  a  naval  engagement  even  more  closely. 
The  theory  of  the  case  outlined  in  the  pleadings  is  to  the  advo- 
cate as  the  ship  to  the  sailors  who  "fight  by  sea."  They  may 
veer  and  tack,  but  they  must  do  their  fighting  from  their  ships. 
So  with  the  advocate;  he  must  fight  within  his  theory.  At  the 
risk  of  doing  with  our  illustration  what  Choate  said  the  con- 
stable did  with  the  participle,  we  press  it  a  little  further,  and 
liken  a  cranky  and  feeble  theory  to  a  leaky  and  unseaworthy 
craft. 

§  134  Nature  of  work  in  constructing;  theory. — There  are 
in  complex  cases  many  points  to  be  carried  by  assault,  many 
weak  places  to  be  defended,  and  many  posts  to  be  fortified. 
The  task  of  constructing  a  theory  in  such  cases  is  intricate  and 
difficult.  This  part  of  the  advocate's  work  is  very  like  that  oi 
a  general  planning  a  campaign;  but  in  some  respects  it  is  even 
more  difficult,  for  the  reason  that  the  theory  must  account  for 
many  things  by  showing  their  origin  and  developing  their 
character.  Like  the  general,  the  advocate  must  foresee  and 
provide  against  the  movements  of  his  adversary;   for  that  man 


106  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §   135 

will  go  far  astray  who  looks  alone  to  his  own  side  and  takes  no 
thought  of  what  his  antagonist  may  do.  It  is  not  a  contest  or 
a  campaign  where  only  one  side  moves;  nor  will  it  do  to  take 
it  for  granted  that  the  adverse  counsel  will  pursue  some  old  and 
often-tried  tactics.  One  who  rests  upon  such  a  supposition 
will  most  likely  meet  the  fate  which  befell  the  Austrian  gener- 
als who  supposed  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  young  French- 
man would  fight  according  to  the  ancient  and  well-known 
system. 

§  135.  Preparation  and  arrangement  of  details. — The  re- 
semblance between  the'  process  of  planning  a  campaign  and 
constructing  a  theory  extends  to  the  work  of  the  preparation  and 
arrangement  of  details.  Success  demands  that  there  should  be 
"an  almost  ignominious  attention  to  detail."  Little  things 
often  do  great  mischief;  a  hole  in  the  bottom  of  a  ship  may 
bring  destruction  as  surely  as  if  the  vessel  were  torn  plank  from 
plank;  the  breaking  of  a  diminutive  bolt  may  stop  the  machin- 
ery of  a  great  factory;  the  displacing  of  a  spike  may  bring 
destruction  to  a  railroad  train  and  death  to  its  passengers. 
The  omission  of  a  demand,  the  failure  to  give  a  notice,  or  the 
neglect  to  make  some  formal  proof,  may  bring  irretrievable 
disaster.  An  omitted  item,  though  easily  obtained,  may  be 
fatal  to  success.  One  who  walks  through  the  patent  office  at 
"Washington  is  struck  with  the  great  number  of  rejected  models. 
Many  of  them — indeed,  almost  all  of  them — are  striking 
specimens  of  mechanical  skill  and  inventive  genius,  and  per- 
fect in  every  part  except  one,  but  that  one  ruins  all.  It  is  so 
of  many  theories;  they  are  perfect  in  outline,  but  defective  in 
detail.  To  the  mind  of  the  author  they  seem  serviceable  for 
actual  work,  but  when  put  to  the  test  they  prove  defective  in 
some  part.  Their  framers  arc  not  mindful  of  the  rule  that  no 
part  of  a  thing,  such  as  a  theory,  is  stronger  than  its  weakest 
part.  The  fabric  may  be  perfect  in  every  part  except  one,  but 
the  one  imperfection  may  shatter  the  whole  when  the  collision 
comes.  It  is  of  little  importance  that  a  fortress  be  defended  at 
every  point  save  one,  if  the  undefended  point  be  sufficient  to 


§  136  TIIK    TIIKOKY    OF    TlIK    CASE.  107 

let  in  the  assailants.  This  holds  ^uod  of  a  theory  of  a  case; 
for,  no  matter  how  many  strong  points  it  may  have,  it  will 
serve  no  useful  purpose  if  it  has  one  weak  place  that  will  let  in 
the  assailants  and  compel  a  capitulation.  It  is  the  great  pur- 
pose of  the  theory  to  lay  out  the  road  to  Ijc  passed  over  to  suc- 
cess, and  to  provide  the  means  which  will  insure  the  victor)'. 
If  there  are  gaps  that  can  not  be  crossed,  or  forces  that  can  not 
be  brought  into  the  conflict  at  the  right  time  and  place,  the 
theory  has  not  accomplished  its  purpose.  If,  as  sometimes 
happens,  the  theory  contemplates  only  what  may  be  done  after 
the  conflict  has  ended,  it  will  be  of  as  littk'  value  as  the  tactics  of 
the  Knight  of  La  Manclui. 

§  136.  Verification  of  theory. — Hostile  criticism  is,  in  every 
instance,  to  be  expected.  Positions  must  be  laid  down  and 
entrenched  with  the  knowledge  that  the  strongest  array  of  force 
and  the  keenest  weapons  that  hostile  minds  can  secure  will  be 
brought  against  them  at  every  point. ^  The  M'ork  of  verifica- 
tion, therefore,  needs  to  be  thorough  and  searching.  Judge 
Cooley,  in  his  introduction  to  the  edition  of  Blackstone's  Com- 
mentaries edited  by  him,  supplies  an  example  of  the  close 
work  that  must  be  done  in  verifying  a  theory. ^  In  the  physical 
sciences  each  step  is  verified  by  experiment  before  a  theory  is 
accepted,  and  the  study  of  the  work  of  the  philosophers  who 
have  devoted  their  time  and  talents  to  the  discovery  of  physical 
laws  and  theories  is  an  excellent  discipline  for  the  advocate.-^ 
He  can,  however,  make  no  actual  experiments;  all  that  he  can 
do  is  to  refer  his  inferences  and  hypotheses  to  the  test  of  what 
Cicero  calls  "  reason  in  its  intense  and  primitive  purity." 

§  137.  Fallacies  to  be  guarded  apiiiist. — The  way  of  a  framer 
of  a  theory  is  so  thickly  beset  with  fallacies  that  nothing  but 
unremitting    care  will    prevent  them   from   creeping  into  his 

^  "In  determining  tlie  theory  of  the     it,"  and  tliis  is  the  course   all  advo- 
case,  Rufiis  Choate  was   never  satis-    cates  should  follow, 
fied   until  he  had   met  every   suppo-        *  Cooley's  Blackstone,  xvii. 
sition   that  could  be  brought  against        '  Devey's  Logic,  234;    Dain's  Logic, 

297;  :\Iill's  Logic,  338. 


108  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  138 

mental  fabric.  One  needs  a  mental  microscope  to  detect  them, 
and,  since  that  can  not  be  obtained,  its  place  must  be  supplied 
by  the  power  of  attention,  directed  with  all  the  vigor  the  mind 
can  master  upon  the  work.  The  reports  abound  in  examples 
of  a  fact  or  principle  unduly  assumed.^  Examples  of  the  fal- 
lacy of  non  sequitur  are  numerous.^  The  point  in  dispute  is 
often  mistaken.^  The  fallacy  of  confusion  not  infrequently 
leads  the  advocate  astray/  Again  and  again  advocates  pro- 
ceed in  a  circle,  "  and  beg  the  question."^  A  mistake  is  often 
made  as  to  who  has  the  burden  of  proof  on  a  particular  liypoth- 
esis  or  proposition.*^  Assuming  that  cases  are  analagous  when 
they  are  not  is  a  prolific  source  of  error.''  The  investigator^ 
as,  indeed,  the  reasoner  in  public,  is  sometimes  misled  by  as- 
suming that  the  presumption  is  in  his  favor  when  it  is  against 
him;  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  often  at  fault  for  not  availing 
himself  of  a  presumption  in  his  favor. ^  In  some  instances  the 
advocate  is  deceived  by  an  appearance  of  similarity  in  the  facts 
when  there  is,  in  reality,  an  essential  difference.  In  other 
cases  he  is  deceived  by  an  apparent  difference  where  there  is 
no  real  one,  for,  as  Dr.  Holmes  says,  "  a  great  many  things, 
we  say,  can  be  made  to  appear  contradictory  simply  because 
they  are  partial  views  of  a  truth,  and  may  often  look  unlike  at 
the  first,  as  the  front  view  of  a  face  and  its  profile  often  do."^ 

§  138.  Inconsistent  hypotheses  to  be  avoided. — Rival  and 
conflicting  hyi^otheses  are  sometimes  accepted,  and  seldom  with- 
out harm.     Incomplete  and  inconclusive  hypotheses  not  only 

'  Cinoinnati,  etc.,  Co.  «.  Carper,  112  ^  Eaton   v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  51  N. 

Ind.  26,  34,  35;  Cuff  v.  Newark,  etc.,  II.  504,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Rep.  147,  157; 

Co.,35N.  J.Law,17,  S.C.  lOAm.  Rep.  Fallacies,   196;    Theory  of  Thought, 

205,  209;  Robbins  v.  Burn,  54  111.  48,  '282. 

S.  C.  5  Am.  Rep.  75,  80 ;  Cooke  v.  Mil-  «  Fallacies  (Sidgwick) ,  151 ;  Theory 

ard,  65  N.  Y.  352,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Rep.  of  Thought,  279. 

619,  625.  '  Matter  of  Washington  Avenue,  69 

2  Commissioners  v.   Miller,  7  Kan.  Pa.  St.  352,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Rep.  255,  261. 

479,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Rep.  425,  454.  spates  v.  Prickett,  5  Ind.  22;  The 

'Swank  v.  Hufnagle,  HI  Ind.  453,  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thompson,  107 

454;    Theory  of  Thought,  276;    Sidg-  Ind.  442. 

wick  Fallacies,  189.  "The    Professor    at    the   Breakfast 

*  Austin's  Jurisprudence,  72.  Table,  42. 


§  139  THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE.  109 

destroy  the  symmetry  and  liarmoiiy  of  the  theory,  but  they  also 
make  it  so  confused  and  obscure  that  it  is  not  likely  to  accom- 
plisli  any  substantial  results.  To  such  theories  may  be  applied 
tlie  words  of  Bunyan:  "They  go  not  uj)rightly,  but  all  awry 
with  their  feet;  one  shoe  goes  inward  and  another  outward,  and 
their  hosen  out  behind;  there  a  rag  and  there  a  rent,  to  the  dis- 
paragement of  their  Lord."  It  is  only  the  good  and  perfect 
materials  that  should  find  entrance  into  the  theory.  The  con- 
struction of  a  sound  theory  requires  the  highest  powers  of  the 
Ininian  intellect.  Mr.  Donovan  says,  with  truth  and  force: 
' '  The  science  of  good  practice  is  that  art  which  teaches  a  builder 
to  discard  bad  timber,  to  prepare  what  he  uses  with  precise 
care,  and  lit  it  with  precision  to  the  members  of  the  building; 
that  teaches  a  mason  to  make  joints  before  reaching  the  build- 
ing he  is  erecting.  The  plan  in  the  brain  is  the  science  of  it 
all."i 

§  139.  Importance  of  verification  of  theory. — A  theory  not 
well  constructed  may  deprive  its  franier  of  advantages  that  a 
good  theory  would  secure  him,  and  impose  upon  him  burdens 
that  a  good  theory  would  relieve  him  from  carrying.  A  theory  not 
radically  bad  may  still  be  weak,  and  by  its  weakness  make  un- 
certain that  which  by  thought  and  care  might  be  made  certain. 
\"erification  will,  if  skillfully  and  thoughtfully  conducted,  ex- 
])0se  the  weak  places,  and  enable  the  worker  to  strengthen  them, 
and  it  will  also  enable  him  to  make  conspicuous  the  strong 
places.  The  theory,  although  not  radically  wrong — that  is, 
wholly  untenable — may  still  be  defective  in  many  respects; 
thus,  it  may  be  so  constructed  as  to  concede  what  might  better 
be  denied,^  or  to  deny  what  might  better  be  conceded;  or  it  may 
needlessly  put  the  burden  of  proof  upon  one  party  where  with 
advantage  it  might  be  placed  upon  the  other;  or  it  may  assume 
that  it  is  necessary  to  prove  much  more  than  the  law  requires; 
or  it  may  unnecessarily  provide  for  matters  of  description,  and 
lead  to  a  fatal  failure  of  proof,  where  there  was  no  necessity  for 

»22  Central  Law  Journal,  48.  Wachter,  123  111.  440,  S.  C.  15  N.  E. 

» Quinn  r.  People,  128  111.  333,  S.  C.     Rep.  279,  280. 
15  N.  E.  Rep.  4();   Ohio  ct  M.  R.  Co  v. 


110 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§140 


particularity  of  description.  These  hints  are,  we  assume,  suf- 
ficient to  lead  the  framer  of  a  theory  to  carefully  work  out  and 
verify  his  theory  before  he  subjects  it  to  the  blows  and  buffets 
of  the  trial.  A  verification  may  prove  that,  while  his  theory 
is  not  totally  unsound,  it  is  yet  infirm,  and  this  consideration 
a  prudent  worker  will  deem  enough  to  make  him  push  his  veri- 
fication much  further  than  a  mere  inquiry  as  to  whether  it  is 
in  its  general  frame  and  outlines  an  available  one.  An  advo- 
cate, although  he  may  not  totally  mistake  his  remedy,  may  yet 
be  greatly  embarrassed  by  an  infirm  or  overburdensome  theory. 
Care  and  work  will  be  well  repaid  when  bestowed  upon  the  prep- 
aration of  the  theory.  Be  the  theory  good  or  bad,  his  work  on 
the  trial,  and  throughout  all  the  case,  will  be  controlled  and 
limited  by  it,  for  the  court  will  hold  him  to  it  with  a  firm  hand.  ^ 


§  140.  Trial  court  theory  prevails  on  appeal. — The  theory 
upon  which  a  cause  is  tried  continues  until  the  end,  even  though 
the  case  goes  to  the  court  of  last  resort. ^     This  rule  is  adhered 


'  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wood,  113 
Ind.  544;  Carver  v.  Carver,  97  Ind. 
497,  516;  Graham  v.  Nowlin,  54  Ind. 
389;  Quinn  v.  People,  123  111.  333,  S. 
C.  15  N.  E.  Rep.  56;  Ohio  &  M.  R. 
Co.  V.  AVachter,  123  111.  440,  S.  C.  15  N. 
E.  Rep.-279,  280. 

"Tomlinson  v.  Ellison,  104  Mo.  105, 
S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  201 ;  La  Fayette,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Kleinhoffer,  40  Mo.  App.  388; 
Trigg  V.  Taylor,  27  Mo.  245;  Bull  v. 
Coe,  77  Cal.  54;  Capital  Bankv.  Arm- 
strong, 62  Mo.  59;  Walker  v.  Owen, 
79  Mo.  563;  Wheeler  v.  American, 
etc.,  Co.,  6  Mo.  App.  235;  In  re  Rey- 
der's  Estate,  38  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  29,  S. 
C.  59  Hun,  618;  South  Omaha,  etc.. 
Bank  v.  Chase,  30  Neb.  444,  46  N.  W. 
R.  513;  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  u.  Central, 
etc.,  Co.,  139  U.  S.  62 ;  Perry  v.  Beaupre, 
6  Dak.  49 ;  Conklin  «.  Plant,  34111.  App. 
264;  Senftt'.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.,  14 
N.  Y.  Supp.  876 ;  Graham  v.  Nowlin,  54 
Ind.  389 ;  Carver  v.  Carver,  97  Ind.  497 ; 


Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Acres,  108  Ind. 
548;  Brink  v.  Reid,  122  Ind.  257; 
Feder  v.  Field,  117  Ind.  386,  S.  C.  20 
N.  E.  R.  129;  Manifold  v.  Jones,  117 
Ind.  212,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  124.  Where 
parties  try  a  cause  upon  the  theoiy 
that  it  is  a  suit  in  equity  they  can  not 
afterwards  insist  that  it  was  an  action 
at  law.  Farmers'  Bank  v.  Butterfield, 
100  Ind.  229;  Ikerd  v.  Beavers,  106 
Ind.  483;  Jarboe  v.  Severein,  112  Ind. 
572;  Wallace  v.  Harris,  32  Mich.  380; 
Dunbar  V.  Locke,  62  N.  H.  442;  Dav- 
idson V.  Morrison,  86  Ky.  397,  S.  C.  5 
S.W.  R.  871;  Rynesu.  Dumont,  136 
XT.  S.  354.  Where  a  party  tries  a  cause 
as  an  action  at  law  he  will  not  after- 
wards be  heard  to  aver  that  it  was  a 
suit  in  equity.  Brown  v.  Home  Sav- 
ings Bank,  5  Mo.  App.  1;  Adams 
County  V.  Hunter,  78  Iowa,  328,  S.  C. 
43  N.  W.  R.  208.  Where  parties  insist 
upon  a  specified  construction  of  a  con- 
tract in  the  trial  court,  they  will  be 


§140 


THE    THEORY    OF    THE    CASE. 


Ill 


to  witli  groat  strictness.^  The  rule  is  necessary  in  order  to  se- 
cure justice  by  preventing  parties  from  shifting  ground  and 
from   misleading  their  o[)p()nents  mid   the  trial  court. ^     It  is 


held  to  it  on  appeul.  ^Metzler  v.  James, 
12  Col.  322,  S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  885;  Bar- 
rett V.  Fisch,  70  Iowa,  553.  So,  where 
parties  insist  in  the  court  of  original 
jurisdiction  that  a  contract  is  valid, 
they  can  not  successfully  impeach  it 
on  appeal.  Russell  v.  Rosenbaum,  24 
Neb.  709,  S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R.  287.  Parties 
who  sue  in  contract  vhen  they  should 
have  sued  in  tort  must  a])ide  by  their 
original  theory.  Samuels  c.  Blanchard, 
25  Wis.  329 ;  Salisbury  r.  Howe,  87  N. 
Y.  128 ;  Lock  wood  v.  Quackenbush,  83 
N.  Y.  607.  Asking  instructions  upon 
a  specific  theory  precludes  a  party 
from  availing  himself  of  a  different 
one.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  AVood, 
113  Ind.  544;  Doly  v.  Gillett,  43  Mich. 
202.  See,  upon  the  general  subject, 
Downardi'.  Hadley,  116  Ind.  131,  S.  C. 
18  N.  E.  R.  457;  Spickerman  v.  Mc- 
Chesney,  111  N.  Y.  686,  S.  C.  19  N.  E. 
R.  260 ;  Fry  v.  State,  81  Ga.  645,  S.  C. 
8  S.  E.  R.  308 ;  Withers  v.  Jack,  79  Cal. 

297,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  824;  Myers  v. 
Cronk,  113  N.  Y.008,  S.  C.21  N.  E.  R. 
984 ;  Black  v.  Washington,  65  ?*Iiss.  00, 
S.  C.  3  So.  R.  140 ;  Lackey  v.  Pearson, 
101  N.  C.  651,  S.  C.  8S.  E.  R.  121; 
Knowles  v.  State,  27  Texas  App.  503, 
S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  522;  Schriber  v. 
Richmond,  73  Wis.  5,  S.  C.  40  N.  W. 
R.  644;    Plamilton  v.  Ames,  74  Mich. 

298,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  930;  Devecmon 
V.  Shaw,  70  Md.  219,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R. 
645;  Dorr's  Adm.  v.  Rohr,  82  Va.  359; 
Barr  r'.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  30  ^lo. 
App.  248;  Booth  r.  Cottingham,  126 
Ind.  431,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  84. 

'  Some  of  the  courts  have  carried  the 
doctrine  so  far  as  to  hold  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  constitutionality  of  a  stat- 
ute can  not  be  made  on  appeal  if  the 
case  proceeded  upon  a  different  theory 


in  the  trial  court.  Delaney  v.  Brett, 
51  N.  Y.  78;  Vose  v.  Cockcroft,  44  N. 
Y.  415.  In  Powell  v.  Heisler,  45  Minn. 
549,  the  court  held  that  parties  who 
advanced  the  theory  that  a  statute  was 
unconstitutional,  in  the  course  of  the 
opinion  it  was  said :  "The  plaintiff,  in 
his  complaint,  alleged  that  the  legis- 
lative act  authorizing  the  issuing  of 
these  bonds  was  unconstitutional  and 
void,  and  that  the  bonds  for  that  rea- 
son were  void,  and  at  the  trial  tlie 
court  so  in  effect  instructed  the  jury. 
To  this  neither  party  took  exception. 
It  is  apparent  that  the  case  v,-as  tried* 
upon  that  theory  both  by  the  parties 
and  the  court,  but  now,  on  this  ap- 
peal, the  plaintiff  contends  that  the 
law  was  not  unconstitutional,  and  asks 
that  it  be  so  determined  by  this  court. 
The  question  is  not  properly  involved 
in  this  appeal,  and  we  do  not  decide 
it.  The  plaintiff  must  be  taken  to 
have  asserted  and  conceded  for  the 
purposes  of  this  action  that  the  law 
was  unconstitutional,  and  the  bonds 
invalid,  and,  the  court  having  disposed 
of  the  case  upon  that  theory,  the  plain- 
tiff can  not  now,  and  in  the  same  ac- 
tion, ask  that  the  opposite  view  be 
adopted." 

*  Judge  Dillon  thus  outlines  the 
doctrine:  "He  can  not  change  his 
base  after  an  appeal."  Garland  r. 
Wholebau,  20  Iowa,  271 ;  Laverty  r. 
Woodward,  16  Iowa,  1.  See,  also, 
Barlow  v.  Brock,  25  Iowa,  308 ;  Bishop 
V.  Carter,  29  Iowa,  165;  Robinson  <\ 
Keith,  25  Iowa,  321 ;  Coonrod  r.  Ben- 
son, 2  Greene  (Iowa),  179;  McGill  v. 
Wallace,  22  Mo.  App.  675;  Cooper  r. 
City  of  Big  Rapids,  67  :\Iich.  607.  And 
the  same  rule  applies  on  petition  for 
rehearing.     Tims,  if  the  argument  i^ 


112  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  141 

also  required  to  give  consistency  and  harmony  to  procedure, 
and  it  is,  in  truth,  little  more  than  a  logical  development  or 
legitimate  extension  of  the  elementary  rules  that  the  evidence 
must  be  confined  to  issues  made  by  the  pleadings,  and  that  the 
allegations  and  the  evidence  must  concur.  The  issue  upon 
which  the  cause  proceeds  from  first  to  last  is  that  evolved  from 
the  pleadings  in  the  trial  court,  for  new  issues  ^  can  not  be  made 
in  the  appellate  tribunal.^  As  the  pleadings  give  form  to  the 
theory,  and  circumscribe  the  range  within  which  the  questions 
must  arise,  they  must,  it  is  evident,  be  so  framed  that  all  the 
elements  of  a  cause  of  action  on  the  one  side  and  of  a  defense 
on  the  other  shall  be  found  within  the  issues  tendered  by  the 
parties  respectively. 

§  141.  Limits  of  the  rule  that  trial  court  theories  continue 
efiective  on  appeal. — The  rule  that  parties  will  be  held  to  trial 
court  theories  by  the  appellate  tribunal  does  not  mean  that  no 
new  position  may  be  taken,  or  that  new  arguments  may  not  be 
adduced;  all  that  it  means  is  that  substantive  questions  inde- 
pendent in  character  and  not  within  the  issues  or  not  presented 
to  the  trial  court  shall  not  be  first  made  on  appeal.  Questions 
within  the  issues  and  before  the  trial  court  are  before  the  ap- 

the   appellate   court    was   made  upon  welH'.  Smith,  8  Mo.  App.  43;  King  v. 

one  theory,  it  can  not  be   departed  Rea,  13  Col.  69;  Jennings  v.  Bank,  13 

from  on  petition  for  rehearing  after  an  Col.  417 ;  South  Omaha  Bank  v.  Chase, 

adverse  decision.     Knoth  r.  Barclay,  30  Neb.  444,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  513; 

8  Col.  305,  S.  C.  7  Pac.  Rep.  289;  Hig-  Stephens  v.  Motl,  81  Texas,  115,  S.  C. 

ginsv.  Armstrong,  9  Col.  39,  S.  C.  10  16  S.  W.    R.  731;  Gallagher  v.  Bell, 

Pac.  Rep.232;  Weilw.Nevitt(Col.),31  82  Iowa,  722,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  897; 

Pac.  Rep.  487  (488).  Spengler  ?;.  Kaufman,  43  Mo.  App.  5. 

iNesbit  V.  Donald,  86  Ga.  26,  S.  C.  '^  Bonknight  v.  Brown,  16  So.  Car. 

12  S.  E.  R.  183;  Messick  v.  Midland  155;  Lawrence  v.  Grambling,  13  So. 

R.  Co.,  128  Ind.  81 ;  O'Leary  v.  Iskey,  Car.  120;  Chamble  v.  Tribble,  23  So. 

12  Neb.  136;  San  Marcial  Land  Co.  v.  Car.    70;  Hickenbottom  v.  Delaware, 

Stapleton,  4  N.  Mex.  33,  S.  C.  12  Pac.  etc.,   Co.   122  N.   Y.   91;   Crippen  v. 

R.  621;  Ginn  v.  New   England,  etc.,  Morss,  49  N.Y.  63;  Plainer  w.  Platner, 

Co.,  92  Ala.  135,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  388;  78  N.  Y.  90;  Egan  w.  Menard,  32  Minn. 

Sandusky,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hooks  (Iowa),  273;   Brown  v.    Minneapolis,  etc.,   25 

49  N.  W.  R.  61;    Ophir,  etc.,    Co.  v.  Minn.    461;    Spencer  v.  Levering,    8 

Carpenter,6  Nev.  393 ;  St. Louis  Broker-  Minn.  461. 
age  Co.  0.  Bagnell,  76  Mo.  554;  Black- 


^  141 


thp:  theory  ok  the  case. 


113 


pellate  court,  if  duly  saved,  and  new  arguments  and  authori- 
ties may,  with  strict  propriety,  be  brought  forward.  The  rule 
is  further  limited  by  the  doctrine  that  objections  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  subject  may  be  made  at  any  time,  since  such  ob- 
jections can  not  be  waived,  either  by  express  stipulations  as- 
suming to  confer  jurisdiction  or  by  conduct.^  The  rule  is  also 
limited  by  the  doctrine  that  where  a  complaint  or  declaration 
wholly  fails  to  state  a  cause  of  action  the  question  of  its  suf- 
ficiency may  be  successfully  made  on  appeal. 


»  Schuylkill  County  v.  Boyer,  125  Pa. 
St.  226;  Metcalf  v.  Watertown,  128  U. 
S.  586;  Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S. 
322.  It  is  an  elementary  principle  that 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject  comes  from 
the  law  and  never  from  the  acts  or 
agreements  of  the  parties.  Sampson  v. 
Welsh,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  207;  Mills  v. 
Brown,  16  Peters,  525;  Keokuk,  etc., 
Co.  V.  DonneU,  77  Iowa,  221,  S.  C.  42 


X.W.  R.  176 ;  Weeden  v.  Richmond,  19 
R.  I.  128;  Ware  v.  Henderson,  25  So. 
Car.  385;  Damp  v.  Dane,  29  Wis.  419, 
431;  Fowler  v.  Eddy,  110  Pa.  St.  117, 
S.  C.  1  Atl.  R.  789;  People  v.  Walters, 
68  N.  Y.  403,  411 ;  Hardin  v.  Triramier, 
32  So.  Car.  600,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  342; 
Murry  v.  Burris,  6  Dak.  170;  Hall  v. 
Wadsworth,  30  W.  Va.  55 ;  Smith  v. 
Myers,  109  Ind.  1 . 


CHAPTER  IV 


COURTS. 


§  142.  Courts  the  repository  of  judi- 
cial power. 

143.  Courts — Definition. 

144.  Source  of  judicial  power. 

145.  Power  to  create  courts. 

146.  Courts  created  by  the  Consti- 

tution. 

147.  Creation  of  courts — Constitu- 

tional limitations. 

148.  Legislative  judgment — Collat- 

eral attacks. 

149.  Appellate  tribunals. 

150.  Classes  of  courts — Generally. 

151.  Courts  of  superior  and  inferior 

jurisdiction. 

152.  Courts  of  superior  general  ju- 

risdiction. 


§167. 

168. 
169. 
170. 

171. 

172. 
173. 
174. 


175. 
176. 
177. 


153. 

Courts  of  limited  jurisdiction. 

178, 

154. 

The  test  of  determining   the 

rank  of  a  court. 

179, 

155. 

Legislative  courts  —  Influence 
of  fundamental  principles. 

180, 

156. 

Inherent  and  implied  powers 
of  courts. 

181, 

157. 

Court  can  not  divest  itself  of 
jurisdiction. 

182. 

158. 

Term — When  it  begins. 

183. 

159. 

Duration  of  term. 

160. 

The  common  law  fiction  tliat 

the  term  is  as  one  day. 

184. 

161. 

Terms — Business . 

162. 

Terms  of  court — ^Time  of  hold- 
ing. 

185. 

163. 

Terms   of    court — Holding   at 

186. 

improper  time. 

187, 

164. 

Dp.  facto  terms. 

188, 

165. 

Place  of  holding  court. 

166. 

Adjourned     terms  —  General 
doctrine. 

189 

(114) 

Adjourned  terms — Errors  and 
irregularities. 

Order  for  adjourned  term. 

Notice  of  adjourned  term. 

Adjourned  term  —  Waiver  of 
objections. 

Adjourned  term  regarded  as 
continuance  of  regular  term. 

Temporary  adjournments. 

Unauthorized  adjournment. 

The  interim  created  by  ad- 
journments in  term — Vaca- 
tion. 

Continuous  session. 

Special  terms — Generally. 

Special  terms  —  Authority  to 
order. 

Special  terms — Constitutional 
questions. 

Business  of  special  terms. 

Adjournment  —  Reasons  for 
need  not  be  assigned. 

Adjourned  and  special  terms 
Discretionary  power  to  order. 

Terms  of  court — Judicial  no- 
tice. 

Judgment  of  the  court  as  to  the 
regularity  of  its  session — Ef- 
fect of. 

Presumption  as  to  regularity  of 
organization. 

Relation  of  courts  to  other  gov- 
ernmental departments. 

Rules — Definition. 

Rules — Power  to  frame. 

Rules  —  Notice  of  by  other 
courts. 

Discretionary  powers — Nature 
and  extent  of. 


§142 

§190. 
191. 
192. 
193. 

194. 
195. 
196. 
197. 


COURTS. 


115 


Records. 

Control  of  records. 
Nunc  pro  tunc  entries. 
Control   of    process— Interfer- 
ence of  other  courts. 
Control  of  property. 
Property  in  cuntodia  legis. 
Ministers  of  the  courts. 
Officers  of  court. 


§  198.   Officers  of  court— Power  to  ap- 
point. 

199.  Olficers  of  court — Control  of. 

200.  Coiit  rol  of  court-houses  and  ap- 

purtenances. 

201.  Allowances  out  of  public  funds. 

202.  Agreements  and  stipulations  of 

parties. 


§  142.  Courts  the  repository  of  judicial  power. — All  judicial 
power  is  vested  in  the  courts/  although  powers  of  a  judicial 
nature,  or,  as  they  are  often  called,  gwasi  judicial  powers,  may 
be  conferred  upon  administrators  or  ministerial  officers. ^  The 
authority  to  hear  and  decide  controversies  involving  the  rights 
of  persons  and  things  is  strictly  judicial,  and  can  only  be  ex- 
ercised by  the  courts  established  by  law.^  It  is  laid  down  as 
a  fundamental  principle  that  parties  can  not  by  agreement 
create  a  judicial  tribunal.*     The  doctrine,  indeed,  is  carried 


'  One  of  the  first  things  to  be  decid- 
ed after  determining  to  bring  an  action 
or  suit  is  to  determine  in  what  court 
it  shall  be  brought.  Mr.  Chitty ,  whose 
suggestions  are  always  weighty,  says : 
"To  determine  upon  the  court  to  be 
preferred  it  is  always  necessary  to  as- 
certain the  precise  nature  of  the  right, 
the  injury  and  the  remedy ;  and  to 
protect  a  defendant  well,  to  examine 
the  nature  of  the  defense  and  whether 
it  shall  be  made  at  law  or  in  equity." 
The  great  changes  wrought  by  legisla- 
tive enactment  in  England  and  in 
America  render  Mr.  Chitty's  sugges- 
tions less  important  than  they  were 
when  he  wrote  his  treatise  on  general 
practice,  but  they  are  still  of  import- 
ance and  value. 

» Rhode  Island  r.  Massachusetts,  12 
Peters,  (557,  718;  Sinking  Fund  Cases, 
99  U.  S.  700;  In  re  Cooper,  22  N.  Y. 
67,  82,  84;  Crane  v.  Camp,  12  Conn. 
463;  Betts  r.  Dimon,  3  Conn.  107; 
Mabry  v.  Baxter,  11  Heisk.  682, 689 ;  In 
re  Saline  County,  45  Mo.  52;  Tindal 


V.  Drake,  60  Ala.  170;  Shoultz  r.  Mc- 
Pheeters,  79  Ind.  373;  Greenough  v. 
Greenough,  11  Pa.  St.  489;  Gregory  v. 
State,  94  Ind.  384;  Chandler  v.  Nash, 
5  Mich.  409;  Columbus,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
The  Board,  etc.,  65  Ind.  427 ;  Hawkins 
V.  The  Governor,  1  Ark.  570;  Speight 
V.  The  People,  87  111.  595;  Ex  parte 
Randolph,  2  Brock.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  447  ; 
Campbell  r.  Board,  118  Ind.  119,  222; 
Wight  V.  Wallbaum,  39  111.  554. 

^  Andrews  c.Wheaton,  23  Conn.  112; 
Iloaglandr.  Creed,  81111.  506;  Bishop 
V.  Nelson,  83  111.  601 ;  Cobb  v.  People, 
84  111.  511. 

*  Wayne  v.  Caldwell  (S.  Dak.),  S.  C. 
47  N.  W.  R.  547;  Chipman  v.  Water- 
bury,  59  Conn.  496,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R. 
289;  Ohio  River,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Gibbens, 
35  W.  Va.  57,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  1093; 
The  tribunal  must  be  created  by  a  de 
facto  government,  or  it  can  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  court.  Williams  r.  Burff}-, 
96  F.  S.  176;  Stevens  v.  Griffith,  111 
V.  S.  48;  Hickman  r.  Jones,  9  Wall. 
197 ;  Dewing  r.  Perdicaries,96  U.S. 193 ; 


116 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§143 


somewhat  further  by  some  of  the  courts,  for  their  ruling  is  that 
parties  can  not  agree  that  a  term  shall  be  held  at  a  time  differ- 
ent from  that  fixed  by  law,^  but  in  our  judgment  some  of  the 
cases  go  too  far  inasmuch  as  they  seem  to  liold  that  the  pro- 
ceedings are  void  if  the  term  is  convened  or  held  at  a  time 
not  designated  by  law,  although  there  is  color  of  right  to  hold 
it  and  the  parties  are  present  and  proceed  without  objection."^ 

§  143.  Courts — Definition. — According  to  Sir  Edward  Coke, 
a  court  "is  a  place  where  justice  is  judicially  administered." 
But  this  definition,  we  say  with  all  deference  to  the  great  jurist, 
is  not  adequate  nor  strictly  accurate.^  Under  the  American 
system,  however  it  may  be  elsewhere,  the  central  element  of  a 
court  is  the  judicial  presence.*     Our  system  of  government  is 


Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  700 ;  Lockhart 
V.  Horn,  1  Woods,  628 ;  Horn  v.  Lock- 
hart,  17  Wall.  570;  Nelson  i'.  Boynton, 
54  Ala.  368;  Van  Epps  t'.  Walsh,  1 
Woods,  598;  The  Nueva  Anna,  6 
Wheat.  193 ;  Norton  v.  Shelby  County, 
118  U.  S.425;  Hildreth's  Heirs  v.  Mc- 
Intires  Devisee,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  206,  S. 
C.  19  Am.  Dec.  61. 

^Brumley  v.  State,  20  Ark.  78; 
"Wightman  v.  Karsner,  20  Ala.  446; 
Greenwood  v.  Bradford,  128  Mass.  296. 

''■  Where  there  is  a  time  definitely 
fixed  by  statute  for  holding  the  term 
and  there  is  no  jurisdictional  fact  up- 
on which  the  tribunal  is  required  to 
give  judgment  before  exercising  au- 
thority there  may  be  some  reason  for 
adjudging  that  the  time  fixed  is  the 
only  one  at  which  a  valid  term  can  be 
held,  but  where  the  right  to  hold  the 
term  is  a  question  to  be  determined 
by  the  tribunal  it  is  otherwise  as  we 
shall  hereafter  show. 

^  The  definition  of  Bacon  is  more 
comprehensive.  He  says  that  a  court 
is:  "An  incorporeal  being  which  re- 
quires for  its  existence  the  presen(;e  of 
its  judges,  or  a  competent  number  of 
them,    and  a  clerk   or  prothonotary, 


at  or  during  which,  and  at  a  place 
where  it  is,  by  law,  authorized  to  be 
held,  and  the  performance  of  some 
public  act  indicative  of  the  design  to 
perform  the  functions  of  a  court." 
Bacon's  Abr.  title  "Courf'A.  See,  also, 
Lawyers  Tax  Cases,  8  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 
650;  Hall  v.  Marks,  34  111.  360;  Mason 
V.  Woerner,  18  Mo.  566;  Hobart  v. 
Hobart,  45  Iowa,  501 ;  Henderson  v. 
Beaton,  52  Texas,  29;  Gold  v.  Ver- 
mont Central  R.  Co.,  19  Vt.  478.  As 
to  what  is  a  court  of  record,  see  29 
Central  Law  J.  67;  31  Central  Law 
Journal,  86;  Bellas  v.  McCarty,  10 
Watts,  13 ;  Hahn  v.  Kelly,  34  Cal.  391, 
422 ;  Wheaton  v.  Doolittle,  23  Wend. 
377;  Ex  parte  Gl&dhm,  8  Metcf.  168; 
Davis  V.  Hudson,  29  Minn.  27;  Grig- 
non's  Lessee  v.  Astor,  2  How.  (U.  S.) 
319. 

*  Lewis  V.  Hoboken,  42  N.  J.  L.  377. 
In  the  argument  of  Eothschild  v. 
United  States,  6  Ct.  of  CI.  204,  212, 
counsel  said :  "The  word  'court,'  when 
used  in  legislation  by  a  body  of  Amer- 
ican legislators,  has  a  well  defined 
and  unmistakable  meaning.  A 
'  court '  signifies  a  member  of  the 
judiciary,  which  is  one  of  theco-ordi- 


§143 


COURTS. 


11 


a  distributive  one  from  the  foundation  upward,  and  llic-  powers 
of  sovereignty  are  distributed  to  different  and  independent 
governiiK'iilal  <k'})artnieiit.s.  The  departments  are  independent 
in  tlie  true  sense  of  the  term  and  not  simply  eo-ordinate.'  In 
many  of  tlie  States  an  officer  iii  one  of  tiie  departments  is  in- 
eligible to  office  in  any  one  of  the  otlier  departments.  The 
element  of  sovereignty  known  as  tlie  judicial  is  vested  in  an 
independentdepartmentof  which  the  members,  whatsoever  their 
title,  arc  judicial  officers.  It  necessarily  results,  tliercforo, 
that  the  judicial  presence,  whatever  be  the  rank  or  title  of  the 
officer  or  officers,  is  necessary  to  give  the  tribunal  the  character 
of  a  court.  Under  the  common  law  system  the  judges  repre- 
sented the  sovereign  who  was  theoretically  in  court  by  his 
judges,-  but  under  the  American  system  the  judges  are  actually 
invested  with  the  elements  of  sovereignty  distributed  to  them 
by  the  organic  law.  The  principle  that  one  department  can 
not  exercise  sovereign  functions  distributed  to  another  is  given 
effect  in  many  forms.  Thus  the  legislature  can  not  grant  a 
new  trial, "^  nor  validate  a  judgment  void  because  jurisdiction 
did  not  exist.*     The  effect  of  the  diverging  lines  of  decisions 


nate  branches  of  the  government." 
This  statement  contains  much  of  truth 
but  something  also  of  error. 

'Turner  v.  Althaus,  (i  Neb.  54; 
Greenough  v.  Greenough,  11  Pa.  St. 
480 ;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns.  477, 
489;  Wright  v.  Defrees,  8  Ind.  29S; 
Perkins  v.  Corbin,  45  Ala.  103.  "  If 
there  is  any  one  proposition  immuta- 
bly established,"  said  Sawyer,  J.,  "  I 
had  supposed  it  to  be,  that  the  judici- 
ary department  is  absolutely  inde- 
pendent of  the  other  departments  of 
government."  In  re  Pacific  Ry.  Com., 
32  Fed.  R.  241,  2G7;  People  r.'  Keeler, 
99  N.  Y.  463,  S.  C.  52  Am.  R.  49 ;  State 
V.  Xoble,  118  Ind.  350,  355;  See,  gen- 
erally, Decatur  i\  Paulding,  14  Peters, 
497;  Ililliard  r.  Connelly,  7  Ga.  172; 
State  V.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570;  Bun-h  ?•. 
Newbury.  ION.  Y.  374;  Campbell  v. 
The  Board,  118  Ind.  119,  122. 


^Blackst.  Com.,  Ch.  7;  Co.  Litt. 
200;  Withers  r.  Patterson,  27  Texas, 
491  ;  Belcher  r.  Chambers,  53  Cal.  ti42; 
State  V.  Noble,  118  Ind.  350;  Bran- 
son V.  Studabaker,  133  Ind.  117,  S.  C. 
33  N.  E.  R.  98. 

'Lane  v.  Nelson,  79  Pa.  St.  407; 
Norman  v.  Heist,  5  W.  &  S.  171 ;  Men- 
ges  r.  Dentler,  9  Casey,  495;  Mc- 
Daniel  v.  Correll,  19  111.  226;  Shonk  r. 
Brown,  61  Pa.  St.  320;  Israel  r. Arthur, 
7  Col.  5;  Denny  r.  Mattoon,  2  Allen, 
361 ;  Lewis  v.  Webb,  3  :\Ie.  326. 

*Lewisr.  AVebb,  3  Me.  326;  Stam- 
ford V.  BarrA-,  1  Aik.  314;  Taylor  r. 
Place,  4  R.  I.  324;  Young  v.  State 
Bank,  4  Ind.  301 ;  Mayor  v.  Horn,  20 
Md.  194;  Weaver  r.  Lapsley,  43  Ala. 
224;  Sydnor  r.  Palmer,  32  Wis.  40(); 
People  r.  Frisbie,  26  Cal.  135;  Lawson 
(  .  Jeffries.  47  Miss.  t\SC>,  S.  C.  12  Am. 
R.  342;  Forster  r.  Forster,  129  Mass. 


118  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  144 

upon  the  general  subject  is  at  last  the  same,  for  they  meet  up- 
on the  general  proposition  that  the  exercise  of  the  judicial  ele- 
ment of  sovereignty  must  be  by  courts  constituted  according 
to  the  law  of  the  land. 

§  144.  Source  ot  judicial  power. — The  ultimate  source  of 
judicial  power  is  the  constitution,  since  it  is  the  organic  law 
that  creates  and  vests  judicial  authority.^  The  constitutions  of 
many  of  the  States  define  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  and 
where  the  constitution  does  this  the  legislature  can  not  divert 
or  alter  the  jurisdiction.-  But  the  power  to  create  judicial  tri- 
bunals is,  in  general,  conferred  upon  the  legislature,  and  when 
courts  are  created  pursuant  to  such  constitutional  warrant  ju- 
dicial powers  are  vested  in  them  by  the  constitution.^  Where 
the  courts  are  created  by  the  constitution,  to  that  instrument 
reference  must  be  made  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  tribunal 
and  the  extent  of  its  jurisdiction.  Where  the  courts  are  created 
by  statute,  then,  of  course,  a  reference  is  to  be  made  to  the 
statute  to  ascertain  their  powers  and  jurisdiction. 

§  145.  Power  to  create  courts. — It  is,  under  most  American 
constitutions,  within  the  general  power  of  the  legislative  branch 

559;   Ratclffie  v.  Anderson,  31  Gratt.  generally,  In  the  Matter  of  the  Appli- 

105,  S.  C.  31  Am.  R.  716.  Judgments  cation  of  the   Senate,   10   Minn.    78; 

can  not  be  controlled  by  legislation.  Alexander  v.  Bennett,  60  N.  Y.  204; 

Griffin  v.  Cunningham,  20  Gratt.  31.  Spencer  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vallejo,  48 

'  ]Missouri  Telegraph  Co.  v.  First  Na-  Cal.  70 ;    In  the  Matter  of  the  Senate, 

tional  Bank,  74  111.  217;  King«.  Hun-  9  Col.  623;  Adams  t'.  Town,  3  Cal.  247; 

ter,  65  N.  C.  603,  S.  C.  6  Am.  R.  754;  Willis  v.  Farley,  24   Cal.    491,    499; 

People  V.  Maynard,  14  111.  419;    Hall  People  v.  Richmond,  16  Col.  274,  S.  C. 

V.  Marks,  34  111.  358 ;  People  v.  Keeler,  26  Pac.  R.  929. 

09N.  Y.463,  S.  C.  52  Am.  R.  49;  State        ^  people    v.    Hunt,   41    Mich.    334; 

r.   Noble,   118  Ind.  350;     Shugart  v.  Covell  v.   Treasurer,    36    Mich.   332; 

Miles,  125   Ind.  445,447;  Hawkins?;.  Heath  i^.  Kent,  etc.,  37  Mich.372;  State 

State,    125    Ind.   570;     Kilbourne  v.  v.  Judge,  14  La.  Ann.  187;  Ex  Parte 

Thompson,  103  U.  S.  168.  Harker,  49  Cal.  469.     The   power  of 

'  Harris  v.  Vandeveer,  21  N.  J.  Equ.  the  legislature  over  courts  created  by 

424;    In  re  Cleveland    (N.  J.),  S.  C.  it  is  very  comprehensive.    Windsors. 

17  Atl.  R.  772;    Hutkof  v.  Demorest,  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  277;    McVeigh  v. 

103  N.  Y.  377;  State  v.  Gannaway,  16  United  States,  11  Wall.  267;  Ex  parte 

Lea.  (Tenn.)  124;    Landers  t>.  Staten  Lange,  18  Wall.  163 ;  7n  re  Cahill,  110 

Island,  etc.,  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  450.     See,  Pa.  St.  167,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  414. 


§  146  COURTS.  119 

of  the  government  to  create  courts  of  original  jurisdiction.^  But 
the  general  power  is  usually  limited  either  by  implication  or 
by  express  provision.  It  has  been  held  that  the  power  to  create 
a  court  can  not  be  delegated  to  the  municipalities  of  the  State, ^ 
and  this  seems  to  us  to  be  the  true  doctrine.  The  creation  of 
a  court  of  justice  is  the  exercise  of  a  high  legislative  power, 
and  such  a  power  is  one  that  must  be  exercised  by  the  legis- 
lature itself.'^ 

§  146.  Courts  created  by  the  constitution. — Judicial  tri- 
bunals created  by  the  constitution  are  beyond  the  legislative 
power  save  only  as  the  constitution  confers  authority,  either  by 
express  words  or  necessary  implication,  over  them.  A  consti- 
tutional tribunal,  that  is,  one  created  or  provided  for  by  the 
constitution,  is  beyond  legislative  change.  Thus,  where  su- 
preme appellate  jurisdiction  is  lodged  in  a  designated  tribunal, 
the  legislature,  although  it  may  create  inferior  courts  of  appel- 
late jurisdiction,  can  not  make  them  of  equal  rank  with  the 
constitutional  court  of  last  resort.*  So,  where  jurisdiction  is 
vested  by  the  constitution  in  a  designated  court,  the  legislature 
can  not  take  the  jurisdiction  from  it,  nor  can  any  part  of  that 
jurisdiction  be  rightfully  conferred  upon  any  other  tribunal.^ 
It  has  been  held  that  where  there  is  no  constitutional  authority 

'  In  re  Cahill,  110  Pa.  St.  167,  S.  C.  *  Branson  v.  Studebaker,  133In(ll47, 
20  Atl.  R.  414;  Corell  v.  Treasurer,  36  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  98;  People  v.  Rich- 
Mich.  332;  State  v.  Mayor,  12  Rich,  mond,  16  Col.  274,  S.  C.  26Pac.  R.  929. 
S.  C.  480;  State  v.  Helfrid,  2  Xott.  &  ^  People  v.  The  Supervisors,  49  Hun, 
McC.  233 ;  State  v.  Young,  3  Kan.  445 ;  476 ;  People  v.  Nichols,  79  N.  Y.  582 ; 
Shaferv.  Munma,  17  Md.  331 ;  Hutch-  Alexanderi'.  Bennett,  60  N.  Y.  204; 
ings  V.  Scott,  4  Hals.  (N.  J.)  218;  City  v.  The  Mayor,  25  Hun,  612;  Pop- 
Seale  v.  Mitchell,  5  Cal.  401.  finger  v.  Yutte,  102  X.  Y.  38;  Hutkoff 

"  In  re  Cloherty,  2  AVash.  137,  S.  C.  v.  Demorest,  103  N.  Y.  377 ;  Mussen  v. 

27  Pac.  R.  1064.  Ausable  Granite  Works,  63  Hun,  367 ; 

'  Smith  V.  Strother,  68  Cal.  194 ;  In  re  Ex  parte  Ginnochio,  30  Tex.  App.  584, 

School   Law  Manual,  63  N.   H.  574;  S.C.,Ginnochio  r.  State,  18  S.W.  R.82. 

Gould  c.  Raymond,  59  N.  H.  260;   In  See,  generally,  Jones  r.  Reed,  3  Wash. 

re  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  241 ;  Ex  57,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1067.    See  Perkins 

/)ar<p  Gritfiths,  118  Ind.  83;    Smithy,  v.  Coi'bin,  45  Ala.  103;  Bors  v.  Pres- 

Rines,  2  Sumu.  338;  Doe  r.  Considine,  ton.  Ill  U.  S.  252;  Davis  c.  Packard,  7 

6  Wall.  458;   Endlich  Interp.  of  Stat-  Pet.  275;  Ames  v.  Kansas,  111  U.  S. 

utes,  22.  449. 


120  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  147 

to  establish  a  court,  the  persons  who  claim  to  be  judges  of  it 
are  not  even  judges  de  facto}  These  decisions  proceed  upon 
the  ground  that  there  must  be  a  de  jure  office  or  there  can  be  no 
de  facto  officer,  but  these  decisions  are  opposed  by  well  reasoned 
cases. ^ 

§  147.   Crccation  of  courts — Constitutional  limitations. — The 

legislative  power,  comprehensive  as  it  is,  is  not  unlimited. 
Courts  may  be  created  by  the  legislature  where  there  is  either 
express  or  implied  authority  conferred  by  the  constitution;  but, 
as  the  judicial  power  is  one  of  the  principal  elements  of  sov- 
ereignty, it  can  not,  as  we  believe,  be  justly  held  that  the  leg- 
islative departments  may  create  such  judicial  tribunals  as  it 
pleases.  A  general  grant  of  power  to  create  courts  invests  the 
legislature  with  a  wide  discretion,  and  where  a  discretion  is 
vested  in  the  legislature  it  is  master  of  that  discretion.^  In 
cases  where  a  grant  or  delegation  of  power  is  made  to  the  leg- 
islature to  establish  courts,  it  may  regulate  at  discretion  the  ju- 
risdiction and  procedure  in  such  tribunals,  provided,  of  course, 
no  constitutional  limitation  is  violated.  In  many  of  the  States 
the  constitution  prohibits  the  enactment  of  special  laws  regu- 
lating the  practice  in  courts  of  justice,  and  in  those  States  the 
statute  must  be  general  and  of  uniform  operation  throughout 
the  State.* 

1  Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  IT.  S.  Where  the    legislature    has   plenary 

425;    Hildreth's  Heirs  v.   Mclntyre,  power  over  a  subject,  it  is  the   sole 

1   J.  J.  Marsh.  206,  19  Am.  Dec.  61 ;  judge  of  the  modes  and  means  best 

People  V.  Brown,    49    Barb.    9,    12;  adapted    to    accomplish    the    object 

People  V.  Terry,  5  N.  Y.  St.  120,  123;  sought  to  be  attained.     Legal  Tender 

People  V.  Toal,  85  Cal.  333,  S.  C.  24  Cases,  110  U.  S.  421;  State  v.  Kolsem, 

Pac.  R.  603;  Walcott  v.  Wells  (Nev.),  130  Ind.  434,  442;  Jamieson  v.  Indi- 

24  Pac.  R.  367,  370,  21  Nev.  — .  ana  Natural  Gas  Co.,  128  Ind.  555, 

«  Burt  V.  Winona,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Minn.  661 ;  Carr  v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  208 ; 

472,  S.  C.  18  N.  W.  R.  285;  Comstock  Cooley's  Const.   Lim.  (4th  ed.)   129; 

V.  Tracey,  46  Fed.  R.  162,  168;  Coyle  IJdd,  392. 

V.  Commonwealth,  104  Pa.  St.  117.  *  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moss,  60  Miss. 

3  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  641;  The  South,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mor- 

561;    License  Cases,  5  How.  (U.  S.)  ris,  65  Ala.  193;   Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

504 ;  Hancock  v.  Yaden,  121  Ind.  366 ;  Whiteneck,  8  Ind.  217 ;    Indiana  Cen- 

State  V.   Haworth,  122  Ind.  462,  467;  tral  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gapen,  10   Ind.  292; 

Hedderich    v.    State,    101    Ind.  564.  Mitchell  v.  McCorkle,   69  Ind.   184; 


§  148  COURTS.  121 

§  148.  Lojjislativo  jin(lo:moiit^ — Collatoral  attacks. — In  close 
harmony  witli  the  ruh'  that  wlicrc  a  (lisci-ction  is  vested  in  the 
legislature  it  has  a  choice  of  modes  and  means,  is  the  rule  that 
where  the  legislature  is  authorized  to  determine  whether  a  state 
of  facts  exists  authorizing  the  exercise  of  power,  its  judgment 
that  such  a  state  of  facts  does  exist  is  conclusive.^  This  doc- 
trine is,  indeed,  nothing  more  than  thc^  just  application  of  the 
general  principle  that  where  a  tribunal  must  determine  that 
facts  essential  to  its  exercise  of  authority  exist,  its  decision  is 
final.  It  is  evident  that  if  any  other  rule  were  recognized  the 
consistency  of  the  law  would  be  destroyed  and  conflict  result, 
with  no  power  capable  of  effectively  and  finally  ending  it,  since 
it  might  often  liappcn  that  one  department  would  make  one  de- 
cision upon  certain  facts,  and  another  department  make  a 
radically  different  decision  upon  the  same  facts.  Logically  the 
department  upon  which  is  devolved  the  duty  of  deciding  before 
action  is  taken  by  it,  must  necessarily  have  the  power  to  fully 
and  finally  decide,  otherwise  the  decision  would  be  an  idle  cer- 
emony. In  accordance  with  the  general  doctrine  we  have  stated, 
it  has  been  held  that  where  the  legislature  has  determined  that 
notice  required  by  the  constitution  to  be  given  before  enacting 
a  special  or  local  law  has  been  given,  the  courts  will  not  inter- 

Durkee  v.  City  of  Janesville,  28  Wis.  State  v.  County  Court  of  New  Madrid, 
464;  Bull  v.  Conroe,  13  Wis.  260;  51  Mo.  82;  Hall  r.  Bray,  51  Mo.  288; 
Holden  v.  James,  11  Mass.  396 ;  Lewis  State  v.  Hitchcock, 1  Kan. 178 ;  Beach  r. 
V.  Webb,  3  Greenl.  326 ;  Budd  v.  State,  Leahy,  1 1  Kan.  23 ;  Davis  r. Gaines, 48 
3  Humph.  483  ;  Wally's  Heirs  r.  Ken-  Ark.  370 ;  Gentile  v.  State,  29  Ind.  409 ; 
nedy,2  Yerg.o54 ;  State  Bank  i\ Cooper,  State  v.  Hockett,  29  Ind.  302 ;  State  r. 
2  Yerg.  599 ;  Tate  v.  Bell,  4  Yerg.  202 ;  Boone,  30  Ind.  225 ;  Longworth  r.  The 
Officer  I'.  Young,  5  Yerg.  320.  Common  Council,  etc.,  32  Ind.  322; 
'  This  general  doctrine  is  well  illus-  Clem  v.  State,  33  Ind.  418;  Marks  r. 
trated  by  the  many  cases  which  hold  Trustees,  37  Ind.  155;  State  r.  Tucker, 
that  where  the  constitution  conunits  40  Ind.  355;  Vickery  r.  Chase,  50  Ind. 
to  the  legislature  the  power  of  decid-  4tn  ;  Kelly  r.  State,  92  Ind.  236; 
ing  whether  an  act  can  be  made  gen-  Johnson  v.  The  Board,  107  Ind.  15, 
eral,  its  decision  is  final  and  unim-  22;  City  of  Evansville  r.  State,  118 
peachable.  Edmonds  r.  Herbrandson,  Ind.  426,  433;  State  r.  Kolsem,  130 
2  N.  Dak.  270,  S.  C.  50  N.  AV.  R.  970;  Ind.  434.  The  doctrine  stated  can,  of 
Brown  t'.  City  of  Denver,  7  Col.  305;  course,  have  no  application  where 
Carpenters.  People, 8 Col.  116;  Stater,  there  is  a  proln1)ition  against  the  en- 
County  Court  of  Boone,  50  Mo.  317;  actment  of  special  laws. 


122 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§148 


fere  with  that  decision,  but  will  regard  it  as  final  and  conclusive.^ 
The  doctrine  we  have  outlined  leads,  with  logical  certainty  and 
precision,  to  the  conclusion  that  where  the  legislature  deter- 
mines, before  enacting  a  law  establishing  a  court,  such  facts  as 
are  essential  to  the  exercise  of  the  power,  its  decision  can  not  be 
successfully  assailed  by  a  collateral  attack.  In  a  recent  case  the 
rule  we  have  stated  was  given  practical  effect. ^ 


1  Stockton  V.  Powell  (Fla.),lo  Lawy. 
R.  Anno.  42,  50.  In  the  course  of 
the  opinion  the  court  said : 

"The  obligation  resting  upon  the 
legislative  department  of  the  govern- 
ment to  conform  to  the  requirements 
of  this  provision  of  the  constitution, 
and  to  the  statute  law  enforcing  the 
same,  can  not  be  questioned.  No  local 
or  special  bill  within  the  purview  of 
the  proviso  of  this  section  of  the  or- 
ganic law  should  be  passed  except  and 
until  notice  of  the  intention  to  apply 
for  the  passage  of  the  same  has  been 
given  in  the  manner  contemplated  by 
the  constitution  and  authorized  legis- 
lation thereunder,  nor  is  it  ever  to  be 
presumed  that  any  branch  of  the  leg- 
islative department  will  give  its  sanc- 
tion to  any  such  local  or  special  legis- 
lation until  legal  and  satisfactory  evi- 
dence   that    such    notice    has    been 
published  shall  be  '  established  in  the 
legislature.'     This  feature  of  the  fun- 
damental law  is  as  binding  upon  the 
consciences  of  those   intrusted   with 
the  legislative  function  of  the  govern- 
ment as  is  any  other  part  of  the  con- 
stitution, but  this  truth  is  by  no  means 
conclusive  that  power  has  been  given 
the  judiciary  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
the  performance  of  the  duty  thus  im- 
posed upon  a  co-ordinate  branch  of 
the  government.     No  such  power  has 
been  given  to  the  judiciary.   To  decide 
whether  or  not  the  notice  has  been 
given,  is  a  legislative    function,  not 
only  in  its  nature,  but  as  a  result  of 
the  provision  that  '  the  evidence  that 


such  notice  has  been  published  shall 
be  established  in  the  legislature  before 
the  bill  shall  be  passed,'  which  pro- 
vision, as  excluding  any  inference  in 
the  matter  by  the  judiciary,  supple- 
ments the  inhibition  pronounced  by 
the  second  article  of  the  constitution 
that  no  person  properly  belonging  to 
one  of  the  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment shall  exercise  any  powers  apper- 
taining to  either  of  the  others,  except 
in  cases  expressly  provided  for  by  that 
instrument."  The  court  cited  in  sup- 
port of  its  conclusion  the  following 
cases:  Lusher  v.  Scites,  4  W.  Va.  11; 
Rumsey  v.  People,  19  N.  Y.  41 ;  De 
Camp  V.  Eveland,  19  Barb.  81 ;  Ad- 
visory Opinion  Matter  of  Impeach- 
ment, 14  Fla.  289;  People  v.  Hulburt, 
24  Mich.  44,  S.  C.  9  Am.  R.  103 ;  Day 
V.  Stetson,  8  Me.  365;  McClinch  v. 
Sturgis,  72  Me.  288. 

2  In  the  case  of  State  v.  Wiley  (Mo.), 
19  S.  W.  R.  197,  the  court's  decision,  as 
the  reporter's  head-note  shows,  was 
this:  "Where  the  legislature,  by  an 
act  constitutional  on  its  face,  creates  a 
criminal  court  for  a  county,  it  will  be 
conclusively  presumed,  in  a  collateral 
attack  upon  the  constitutionality  of 
the  act,  that  the  county  had  a  popula- 
tion of  over  50,000  inhabitants,  and 
tliat  the  act  did  not  violate  const,  art. 
G,  §  31,  prohibiting  the  legislature  from 
establishing  a  criminal  court  in  any 
county  not  having  such  population." 
In  the  course  of  the  opinion  it  was 
said:  "It  was  the  duty  and  right  of 
the  legislature  to    determine  before 


§141) 


COURTS. 


123 


§  149.  Appellate  tribunals. — A  court  of  exclusive  appellate 
jurisdiction  is  one  of  review,  and  its  judgments  are  given  up- 
on decisions  made  by  subordinate  tribunals  or  trial  courts.' 
The  theory  is  that  a  ruling  or  decision  has  been  made  by  a 
tribunal  of  original  jurisdiction,  and  that  the  questions  pre- 
sented are  not  original  ones.  It  is  in  general  true  that  appel- 
late tribunals  proper,  that  is  courts  of  last  resort,  act  only  u})- 
on  the  record  and  decide  only  questions  of  law.  That  there 
are  exceptions  to  this  general  rule  we  know,  but  we  do  not  re- 
gard it  necessary  to  treat  of  those  exceptions  since  we  do  not 
propose  to  do  more  than  give  a  rough  outline  of  the  different 
classes  of   courts.     Original  jurisdiction  may,   where  it  is  not 


passing  the  act,  to  inquire  and  ascer- 
tain as  to  number  of  people  in  Greene 
county.  A  proper  respect  for  a  co- 
ordinate branch  of  the  government 
compels  us  to  presume  that  they  made 
proper  examination  and  found  from 
the  facts  that  they  were  not  infringing 
upon  the  constitution.  The  court  was 
accordingly  established,  and  the  prac- 
tical question  now  arises,  must  this 
court  and  its  officers,  every  time  an 
indictment  is  found  and  a  prisoner 
put  on  trial,  submit,  as  a  preliminary 
question,  to  an  investigation  of  the 
fact  of  the  existence  of  50,000  inhab- 
itants in  Greene  county  on  April  26, 
1889?  The  question  was  answered  in 
State  V.  Rich,  20  :\Io.  393.  Judge 
Leonard,  speaking  for  the  court,  said  : 
'  It  would  indeed  be  impracticable  to 
act  upon  any  such  principle.  If, 
whenever  any  act  done  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  law  came  in  question 
collaterally,  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law  could  be  contested,  then  the 
trial  of  the  main  issue  must  neces- 
sarily be  delayed  until  the  preliminary 
fact  upon  which  the  validity  of  the 
contested  legislative  act  depended 
should  be  first  tried  and  determined 
upon  testimony,  which  being  different 
in  different  cases,  might  involve  the 


absurdity  of  deciding  the  law  consti- 
tutional one  day  and  unconstitutional 
the  next.  But  we  need  not  press  these 
things  further.  The  result  is  manifest. 
All  such  inquiries  must  be  excluded 
whenever  they  come  up  collaterally, 
and  the  county,  its  courts  and  officers, 
must  be  treated  as  things  existing  in 
fact,  the  lawfulness  of  which  can  not 
be  questioned  unless  in  a  direct  pro- 
ceeding for  that  purpose.' 

"  So,  we  think  it  was  clearly  com- 
petent for  the  legislature  to  make  its 
own  inquiries  as  to  the  population  of 
Greene  county  when  it  enacted  the 
law  creating  this  court;  and  until  the 
State,  in  some  api>ropriate  direct  pro- 
ceeding, shall  (juestion  the  constitu- 
tionality of  said  act,  it  will  be  assumed 
that  said  county  had  the  recjuisite  pop- 
ulation, and  no  such  inquiry  will  be 
permitted  in  these  collateral  proceed- 
ings. State  V.  Daniels,  66  Mo.  192; 
State  V.  Boone  Co.  Ct.,  50  Mo.  317." 

*  Story's  Const.  Law,  §1761 ;  Auditor 
V.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Kan.  500; 
Board  v.  Newman,  35  Ind.  10;  Crane 
r.  Farmer  (Col.).  23  Pac.  R.  455;  Plan- 
tors  Ins.  Co.  r.  Cramer,  47  Miss.  200; 
!\Iarbury  r.  ^ladison,  1  Cranch,  137; 
AVeston  v.  City  Council,  2  Peters,  449; 
Benson  v.  Christian,  129  Ind.  535. 


124  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  149 

forbidden  by  the  organic  law,  be  given  to  appellate  tribunals 
by  statute,^  but  this  can  not,  it  is  barely  necessary  to  mention, 
be  done,  where  the  constitution  expressly  or  impliedly  pro- 
hibits it.  ^  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  constitution  should  by 
negative  words  declare  that  original  jurisdiction  can  not  be 
conferred  upon  an  appellate  tribunal,  for  where  the  object  in 
establishing  the  court  is  manifested  by  the  constitution  and 
that  object  appears  to  be  the  establishment  of  an  appellate 
tribunal  the  legislature  can  not  transform  it  into  a  court  of 
original  jurisdiction.  So,  where  the  constitution  by  affirma- 
tive words  declares  what  original  jurisdiction  an  appellate 
court  shall  possess,  the  legislature  can  not  confer  any  other 
upon  it.'"*  The  court  of  last  resort  established  by  the  constitu- 
tion possesses  the  element  of  sovereignty  known  as  the  judicial 
in  its  highest  form,  and  is  the  ultimate  arbiter  in  all  cases  where 
the  controversy  is  of  a  purely  judicial  nature.*  It  is  evident 
that  in  each  of  the  three  great  departments  of  government,  the 
executive,  legislative  and  judicial,  there  must  be  some  supreme 
power,  otherwise  there  would  be  unending  confusion  and  de- 
plorable conflict.  It  is,  of  course,  within  the  power  of  the  people 
— the  source  of  all  governmental  power — to  divide  the  element 
of  sovereignty  distributed  to  the  judicial  department,  but  unless 
the  words  of  the  constitution  clearly  indicate  a  purpose  to  di- 
vide the  highest  judicial  power  it  must  be  held  that  it  resides, 
unified  and  solidified,  in  the  supreme  judicial  tribunal  of  the 
State. 

'  Osborn  r.  Bank,  9  "Wheat.  738;  on  reading  that  case,  that  the  court 
Expartp  Henderson,  6  Fla.  279 ;  Hawes  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  afhrm- 
V.  People,  124  111.  560;  Piqua  Bank  v.  ative  words  that  the  Supreme  Court 
Knoup,  6  Ohio,  342.  shall  possess  this  jurisdiction  naturally 
'^  Hubbell  1'.  McCourt,  44  Wis.  584.  and  properly  included  a  negative — 
^  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cranch,  137.  that  they  should  not  possess  any  other, 
In  speaking  of  the  case  referred  to,  and  the  reasoning  by  which  that  con- 
Judge  Curtis  said:  "You  will  find  on  elusion  was  arrived  at  is  perfectly  sat- 
reading  that  case — it  is  one  of  the  great  isfactory."  Curtis  on  Jurisdiction  of 
judgments  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  the  United  States  Courts,  8. 
not  upon  this  point  only,  but  covering  *  Branson  r.  Studebaker,  133  Ind.147, 
a  variety  of   subjects— you   will   find  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  98. 


§  150  COURTS  125 

§  150.  Classes  of  courts — Generally. — In  many  books  and 
in  many  judicial  opinions  courts  of  original  jurisdiction  are 
classified  as  courts  of  superior  general  jurisdiction  and  courts 
of  limited  inferior  jurisdiction.  But  this  classification,  if  one 
may  judge  by  the  confusion  it  has  produced,  is  not  a  logical  nor 
a  scientific  one.  It  is  true,  in  a  general  sense,  that  all  Ameri- 
can courts.  Federal  and  State,  are  courts  of  limited  jurisdic- 
tion, since  all  have  their  authority  defined,  and,  in  a  measure, 
limited,  by  statutes  or  constitutions,  so  that  it  will  not  do  to 
say  that  because  of  this  fact  these  courts  are  not  superior  courts 
of  general  jurisdiction.  ^  In  this  country,  liowevcr  it  may  be 
elsewhere,  courts  do  not  grow  into  existence  and  vigor  by  cus- 
tom or  usage,  although  we  turn  to  the  unwritten  law  to  ascer- 
tain their  incidental  and  implied  powers.  On  the  other  hand 
courts  created  by  statute  with  a  very  narrow  jurisdiction  are 
vested  with  plenary  authority  over  a  designated  class  of  cases. 
Thus,  in  highway  cases,  boards  of  supervisors  or  commission- 
ers are  vested  with  exclusive  original  jurisdiction,  and  upon 
logical  principles  it  must  be  assumed  that  as  to  such  a  subject 
they  are  not  tribunals  of  limited  jurisdiction.  If  we  proceed  log- 
ically, and  not  arbitrarily,  we  must  conclude  that  a  court  vested 
with  exclusive  authority  over  a  subject  is  not  a  court  of  special 
limited  jurisdiction  as  to  that  subject,  but  the  weight  of  author- 
ity requires  a  different  conclusion,  and  we  must  accept  the  class- 
ification, abitrary  and  illogical  as  it  is,  that  the  decisions  estab- 
lish. It  is  true  that  there  are  tribunals  which  are  in  the  strict 
sense  special  statutory  ones,  as,  for  instance,  commissioners  to 
assess  benefits  and  damages  in  a  condemnation  case,  but  such 
tribunals  are  not  courts  in  a  just  sense.  If  it  were  not  pre- 
sumptuous to  deny  w' hat  so  many  decisions  affirm  we  should  be 

'We  say  that  the  powers  of  a  court  department.  To  atfirm  this  conehi- 
are  in  a  measure  limited  and  defined  sion  would  involve  a  denial  of  the  fun- 
by  statutes  for  the  reason  that  we  do  damental  doctrine  of  free  government, 
not  believe  that  courts  owe  all  their  since  it  would  be  e(]uivalent  to  the  an- 
powers  to  written  laws.  To  concede  nihilation  of  the  doctrine  that  govern- 
that  they  do  would  lead  to  the  conclu-  mental  powers  reside  in  different  de- 
sion  that  all  governmental  power  is  partments. 
unified  and  vested  in  the  legislative 


126 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§150 


inclined  to  assert  that  where  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  is 
conferred  upon  a  court,  no  matter  what  its  rank,  the  court  is 
as  to  the  subjects  over  which  it  has  such  authority  one  of  gen- 
eral jurisdiction.^  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  conceive  how  a 
court  with  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  can  be  anything  else 
than  one  of  general  jurisdiction  over  the  subject  placed  solely 
under  its  authority,  since  that  authority  can  be  shared  by  no 
other  tribunal  and  hence  must  be  general.^ 


'  The  doctrine  we  regard  as  the  cor- 
rect one  is  practically  sanctioned,  al- 
though not  explicitly  stated,  by  some 
of  the  courts.  Thomas  v.  Churchill, 
84  Me.  446,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  899 ;  Cyr  v. 
Dufour,  62  Me.  20 ;  Hume  v.  Conduitt, 
76  Ind.  598;  Turner  v.  Conkey,  132 
Ind.  248.  This  doctrine  is  impliedly 
recognized  in  habeas  corpus  proceed- 
ings. Cortes  V.  Jacobus,  136  U.  S. 
330;  Stevens  v.  Fuller,  136  U.  S.  468; 
People  V.  Liscomb,  60  N.  Y.  559,  S.  C. 
19  Am.  R.  211 ;  Willis  v.  Bayles,  105 
Ind.  363;  Ex  parte  Miller,  82  Cal.  454, 
S.  C.  22  Pac.  Rep.  1113;  People  v.  St. 
Dominick,  34  Hun,  463;  Bennac  v. 
People,  4  Barb.  31.  See,  generally, 
Jackson  v.  Smith,  120  Ind.  520;  Alex- 
ander V.  Gill,  120  Ind.  485,  S.  C.  30  N. 
E.  R.  525;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sut- 
ton, 130  Ind.  405,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  291 ; 
State  t\  Wolever,  127  Ind.  306;  McCoy 
V.  Able,  131  Ind.  417;  Merriman  v. 
Morgan,  7  Ore.  68. 

2 In  HahntJ.  Kelly,  34  Cal.  391,  S. 
C.  94  Am.  Dec.  742,  the  court  in  speak- 
ing of  courts  of  inferior  and  limited 
jurisdiction  said  inter  alia:  "The  doc- 
trine when  pushed  to  its  ultimate  con- 
clusion would  abrogate.the  rule  in  this 
State  and  dwarf  all  our  courts  to  the 
grade  of  inferior  courts  at  common 
law.  The  jurisdiction  of  all  our  courts 
is  special  and  limited,  as  defined  by 
the  constitution,  and  they  do  not  pro- 
ceed according  to  the  course  of  the 
common   law,   but    according  to  the 


course  of  the  practice  act,  which  pre- 
scribes in  almost  every  particular  a 
course  verj'  different  from  the  common 
law.  Some  of  its  paths  are  not  the 
same,  but  like  the  common  law  they 
are  the  exception  and  not  the  rule. 
Are  all  our  courts,  therefore,  inferiorin 
the  sense  of  the  rule  in  question?  If 
this  is  putting  it  too  broadly,  do  our 
courts  when  they  undertake  to  fore- 
close a  mechanic's  lien  under  the  stat- 
ute which  regulates  that  matter  and 
which  in  its  purpose  and  methods  is 
an  entire  stranger  to  the  common  law, 
become  inferior  courts?  When  en- 
gaged in  making  partition  of  lands,  as 
provided  in  the  practice  act,  do  they 
become  inferior  courts  so  far  as  the 
proceedings  relate  to  persons  not  per- 
sonally served?  Is  this  also  true  in 
respect  to  proceedings  under  the  in- 
solvent law  ? 

Sometimes  in  the  same  action  they 
proceed  according  to  the  rules  of  com- 
mon law,  or  rules  which  are  like  those 
of  the  common  laM^,  and  also  accord- 
ing to  the  statute.  Are  they,  there- 
fore, superior  courts  as  to  one  ques- 
tion and  iiiferior  courts  as  to  another 
in  the  same  action?  The  federal 
courts  are  peculiarly  special  and  limit- 
ed in  respect  to  their  jurisdiction. 
Are  they,  therefore,  all  inferior  within 
the  meaning  of  the  law?  Can  noth- 
ing be  presumed  in  favor  of  their  ju- 
risdiction? There  can  be  no  two  opin- 
ions as  to  how  all  these  questions  are 


§  151 


COURTS. 


12: 


§  151.  Courts  of  superior  and  inferior  jurisdiction. — Wlicn 
we  come  to  consider  tlie  question  of  jurisdiction  wo  shall  see 
that  the  distinction  between  courts  of  superior  and  courts  of 
inferior  jurisdiction,  arbitrary  and  foundationlcss  as  we  vent- 
ure to  say  it  is  under  our  sy.stem,  is  an  im})ortant  one,  and, 
because  of  its  importance,  it  is  necessary  to  kccj)  in  the  beaten 
track  and  give  recognition  to  the  fancied  distinction.  It  is 
exceedingly  difficult,  if,  indeed,  not  impossible,  to  convey  an 
adequate  or  accurate  conception  of  the  difference  between 
superior  and  inferior  courts,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  many 
decisions  proceed  upon  the  assumption  that  there  is  a  radical 
difference.^     It  will  not  do,  as  is  evident  from  what  we  have 


to  be  answered.  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3 
Pet.  193 ;  Coit  v.  Haven,  30  Conn.  190, 
S.  C.  79  Am.  Dec.  244. 

The  reason  sometimes  given  for  the 
classification  of  courts  into  superior 
and  inferior  is  that  the  one  proceeds 
according  to  the  course  of  the  common 
law  and  the  other  according  to  the 
statute,  but  this  reason  is  not  a  valid 
one.  It  is  not  valid  because,  as  shown 
in  the  text  and  in  the  extract  taken 
from  the  opinion  in  Hahn  r.  Kelly,  all. 
American  courts  proceed  partly  under 
unwritten  laws.  It  is  shown  to  be  in- 
valid when  it  is  brought  to  mind  that 
all  judicial  tribunals  ranking  as  courts 
proceed  in  great  part  according  to  the 
unwritten  law  established  in  this  age 
by  judicial  decisions  which  assume  to 
be  founded  on  the  common  law. 

^  A  thoughtful  and  judicious  writer 
says:  "The  use  of  the  words  'su- 
perior' and  'inferior,'  however  apt  they 
may  have  once  been,  are  less  so  at  this 
time  and  place,  and  their  duties  in 
view  of  our  system  and  mode  of  pro- 
cedure would  be  better  performed  by 
the  terms  '  courts  of  record  '  and  courts 
and  tribunals  not  of  record."  Free- 
man on  Judgments  (2d.  ed.),  §122. 
Judge  Van  Fleet,  after  a  careful  study 
of  the  cases,  thus  states  the  modern 


rule:  "On  principle,  it  seems  to  me 
to  be  self-evident  that,  if  the  court 
has  unlimited  jurisdiction  over  a  class 
of  cases,  its  jurisdiction  in  such  mat- 
ters is  general ;  and  that  when  its  rec- 
ord shows  such  a  case,  all  presump- 
tions are  in  its  favor,  and  that  silence 
is  conclusive.  According  to  this  idea 
the  proceedings  of  county  courts  and 
county  commissioners  or  supervisors 
in  respect  to  county  matters,  boards 
for  the  assessment  or  revision  of  taxes, 
and  justices  of  the  peace  in  actions 
between  landlord  and  tenant  for  the 
possession  of  land,  being  unlimited 
and  generally  exclusive,  should  be 
classed  with  those  of  superior  courts, 
and  all  intendments  made  in  their 
favor.  "When  any  ti'ibunal  is  given 
unlimited  power  over  a  matter,  that 
is  a  legislative  assertion  that  it  is  com- 
petent to  adjudicate  upon,  and  right- 
fully settle,  all  questions  that  may 
arise  concerning  it.  No  stronger  de- 
claration can  be  made  in  respect  to 
any  tribunal.  When  the  record  shows 
that  such  a  matter  has  been  adjudicat- 
ed, no  court  has  ever  yet  attempted 
to  give  any  reason  why  all  intend- 
ments and  presumptions  should  not 
be  made  in  its  favor,  and  I  doubt  if 
any  court  ever  will.     I  get  this  idea 


128 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  151 


said  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  to  cliaracterize  all  courts  which 
derive  their  being  and  authority  from  the  written  laws  as  courts 
of  inferior  jurisdiction.  Such  a  conclusion,  we  may  add, 
would  involve  the  absurdity  of  declaring  that  all  American 
courts  are  inferior  tribunals,^  and  it  would,  also,  require  the 
impeachment  of  many  well  considered  cases. ^  The  confusion 
in  which  the  general  subject  is  involved  is  further  manifested 
in  the  difficulty  of  determining  how  far  a  court  of  any  rank, 
no  matter  how  exalted,  may  go  without  so  far  transcending  its 
powers  as  to  render  its  judgments  void.  Some  of  the  decisions 
go  to  extreme  lengths  upon  this  subject,  and  hold  that  where 
the  rules  of  procedure  are  not  obeyed  the  judgment  is  invalid. 
This  extreme  doctrine  we  believe  to  be  unsound.  We  have  no 
doubt,  however,  that  there  may  be  cases  where  a  judgment  is 
void  because  not  one  that  the  court  had  power  to  render  in  the 


from  the  cases  and  not  from  my  own 
thoughts."  Collateral  Attack,  pp.  874, 
875. 

'  Starting  from  an  erroneous  premise 
one  of  the  courts  of  last  resort  has 
held  that  it  is  itself  a  court  of  inferior 
jurisdiction.  Linn  v.  Kyle,  1  "Walker, 
(Miss.),  315.  In  that  case  it  was  said, 
"  By  a  uniform  train  of  decisions  in 
this  tribunal  from  its  earliest  estab- 
lishment to  the  present  time  it  has 
been  held  to  be  a  court  of  limited  and 
not  general  jurisdiction."  The  gen- 
eral conclusion  reached  is  thus  broadly 
stated:  "This,  then,  is  a  court  of 
limited  jurisdiction,  in  no  case  can  its 
jurisdiction  exist,  unless  it  appear." 
Few  will  concur  in  this  conclusion 
but  if  the  validity  of  the  premises  be 
granted  the  deduction  is  logical  and 
correct.  The  only  tenable  position 
is,  as  it  seems  to  us,  to  deny  the 
premises,  but  that  is  somewhat  haz- 
ardous, since  it  brings  one  into  war 
with  the  adjudged  cases.  Kempe  v. 
Kennedy,  5  Cranch,  173;  Kennedy  v. 
Georgia,  etc.,  Bank,  8  How.  U.  S.  611 ; 
Busteed  v.  Parsons,  54  Ala.  393,  S.  C. 


25  Am.  E.  688 ;  St.  Albans  v.  Bush,  4 
Vt.  58,  S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  246;  Vose  v. 
Morton,  4  Cush.  27,  S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec. 
750. 

^Turner  v.  Malone,  24  S.  Car.  398; 
Angell  V.  Angell,  14  R.  I.  541 ;  Miller  v. 
United  States,  11  Wall.  268;  Reed  v. 
Vaughan,  15  Mo.  137,  S.  C.  55  Am. 
Dec.  133;  Musselman's  Appeal,  65  Pa. 
St.  480;  Lex's  Appeal,  97  Pa.  St.  289; 
Veach  v.  Rice,  131  U.  S.  293 ;  Foot  v. 
Stevens,  17  Wend.  483;  Harvey  v. 
Tyler,  2  Wall.  328 ;  Agricultural  Co.  v. 
Barnard,  96  N.  Y.  531 ;  Sims  v.  Gay, 
109  Ind.  501 ;  Powell  v.  North,  3  Ind. 
392;  T>OQv.  Smith,  1  Ind.  451;  Braly 
V.  Breese,  51  Cal.  447;  Shroyer  v. 
Richmond,  16  Ohio  St.  455 ;  Doolittle 
V.  Holton,  28  Vt.  819,  S.  C.  67  Am. 
Dec.  745;  Dayton  «.  Mintzer,  22  Minn. 
393 ;  Osborne  v.  Graliam,  30  Ark.  67 ; 
Apel  V.  Kelsey,  52  Ark.  341,  S.  C.  20 
Am.  St.  R.  183 ;  Johnson  v.  Beazley, 
65  Mo.  250,  S.  C.  27  Am.  R.  276;  Cam- 
den V.  Plain,  91  Mo.  117;  Rowden  v. 
Brown,  91  Mo. 429 ;  Luco  u. Commercial 
Bank,  70  Cal.  339. 


§  151 


COURTS. 


129 


particular  instance.^  Wc  suppose  that  no  one  would  doubt 
that  if  a  court,  no  matter  how  broad  the  field  of  its  power, 
should  imprison  a  man  where  there  was  nothing  more  tlian  a 
simple  action  of  debt  the  judgment  would  be  void,  but  we 
suppose  it  to  be  equally  clear  that  if  a  court  of  any  rank,  no 
matter  how  low,  should  render  a  judgment  not  authorized  by 
tlio  rules  of  procedure  its  judgment  would  not  be  void  al- 
though it  would  be  erroneous.  It  seems  clear  to  us  that  some 
of  the  eases  place  entirely  too  much  stress  upon  the  doctrine  of 
limited  power  and  are  thus  carried  into  serious  error,  but,  on 
the  other  liand,  it  is  true  that  there  may  be  cases  where  the 
judgment  is  so  far  beyond  the  authority  existing  in  the  partic- 
ular instances  that  it  may  be  void.^  Such  cases,  however,  are 
very  rare  and  are  of  extraordinary  character.  But  the  doctrine 
of  limited  power  is  one,  which,  as  we  believe,  can  not  be  ex- 
tended without  producing  evil  and  confusion. •"* 


•Thus  in  Anthony  v.  Kasey,  83  Va. 
338,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  277,  it  was 
held  that  a  judgment  rendered  against 
a  surety  on  a  bond  of  a  purchaser  at 
a  sheriff's  sale  is  void  if  rendered 
against  him  upon  a  rule  issued  against 
him  and  his  principal  because  of  the 
latter's  default.  In  the  course  of  the 
opinion,  it  was  said:  "  Now,  it  is  es- 
sential to  the  validity  of  a  judgment 
or  decree,  that  the  court  rendering  it 
shall  have  jurisdiction  of  both  the  sub- 
ject-matter and  the  parties,  nor  is  this 
all,  for  both  of  these  essentials  may 
exist  and  still  the  judgment  or  decree 
be  void,  because  the  judgment  was 
not  such  as  the  court  had  power  to 
render,  or  because  the  mode  of  pro- 
cedure was  such  as  it  might  not  law- 
fully adopt.'"  We  venture  to  suggest 
that  the  language  employed  is  too 
broad,  although  it  is  snl)stantially  bor- 
rowed from  the  opinion  in  the  case  of 
AVindsorv.  McVeigh,  m  U.  S.  282,  283. 
If  a  departure  from  rules  of  procedure 
makes  the  proceedings  coram  nonjudice 


and  void,  then,  a  long  line  of  decisions 
is  erroneous,  and  the  distinction  be- 
tween collateral  and  direct  attacks  un- 
substantial and  illogical. 

»  Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  282. 
See,  also,  United  States  v.  Winches- 
ter, 99  U.  S.  372 ;  Pelham  v.  Rose,  9 
Wall.  103;  The  confiscation  Cases,  20 
Wall.  92;  Strosser  v.  City  of  Fort 
Wayne,  100  Ind.  443;  Henry  v.  Car- 
son, 96  Ind.  412,  444.  In  the  case 
last  cited  the  doctrine  is,  we  think  it 
safe  to  say,  somewhat  too  broadly 
stated. 

3  The  general  question  is  ably  dis- 
cussed by  Judge  Brewer,  now  Mr. 
Justice  Brewer,  in  Cooke  v.  Bangs, 
31  Fed.  Rep.  640.  The  question  re- 
lated to  the  authority  of  a  justice  of 
the  peace,  and  in  speaking  of  a  judg- 
ment of  that  officer  it  was  said :  "If 
he  assumes  to  try  a  man  for  man- 
slaughter, and  sentences  him  to  the 
penitentiary,  he  is  proceeding  in  a 
direction  which  is  entirely  outside  of 
the  scope  of  his  jurisdiction.     On  the 


130 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§152 


§  152.  Courts  of  superior  general  Jurisdiction. — It  is  quite 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  a  definition  of  a  court  of 
superior  general  jurisdiction,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
decided  cases  assert  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  courts 
of  superior  and  courts  of  inferior  jurisdiction,  and  that  two 
great  classes  do  exist.  The  distinction  is  recognized,  but  there 
is  no  successful  attempt  to  give  an  accurate  definition,  so  far  as 
we  can  discover,  of  a  court  of  general  jurisdiction.  Although 
many  of  the  courts  take  it  for  granted  that  courts  of  general 
and  inferior  jurisdiction  exist,  and  that  there  is  a  wide  differ- 
ence between  the  two  classes,  no  court  has  given  a  satisfactory 
definition  or  description  of  either  class. ^     It  is  not,  perhaps, 


other  hand,  he  may  have  jurisdiction 
over  assaults  and  batteries  and  does 
in  most  States.  Suppose  he  proceeds 
to  try  a  man  charged  with  assault  and 
battery,  and  suppose,  in  fact,  the  as- 
sault and  battery  was  committed  out- 
side of  the  county  over  which  his  ju- 
risdiction extends ;  then,  although  his 
judgment  would  be  erroneous,  and  in 
excess  of  his  jurisdiction,  yet,  having 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter  of 
assault  and  battery,  and  of  the  person 
of  the  defendant,  it  lies  with  him  to 
determine  whether  such  particular  as- 
sault and  battery  comes  within  his 
jurisdiction;  and  his  determination, 
though  erroneous,  ought  not  to  sub- 
ject him  to  an  action  for  damages.  He 
has  jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter 
and  it  is  for  him  to  determine  whether 
the  case  is  within  his  jurisdiction.  He 
has  the  right  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion, and  although  it  may  be  a  case 
which  does  not  come  within  the  limi- 
tation of  his  jurisdiction,  and  although 
he  may  have  exceeded  his  authority, 
yet  he  had  the  power  and  the  right 
to  determine  whether  or  no  he  had 
that  jurisdiction,  and  it  can  not  be 
said  to  be  a  case  wherein  the  entire 
subject-matter  was  outside  of  his  juris- 
diction 


'  ]Mr.  "Wells  quotes  from  the  opinion 
of  the  court  delivered  in  the  case  of 
Hai-vey  v.  Tyler,  2  Wall.  328,  the  state- 
ment that  "The  line  between  the  two 
classes  of  cases  may  not  be  very  well 
defined  nor  easily  ascertained  at  all 
times,"  and  quotes,  also,  other  por- 
tions of  the  opinion,  from  which  it  ap- 
pears, we  venture  to  say,  with  all  pos- 
sible deference  for  that  high  tribunal, 
that  the  court  was  sorely  confused  and 
perplexed.  The  comment  of  the  au- 
thor referred  to  is  this:  "  It  is  a  legit- 
imate conclusion,  from  the  preceding 
quotation,  that  the  same  court  may  be 
one  of  general  jurisdiction  in  regard 
to  some  subjects,  and  of  special  in  re- 
gard to  others,  or  superior  or  inferior 
at  once,  from  the  nature  of  the  subject 
submitted,  and  the  mode  of  determin- 
ing them  respectively."  Wells  on  Ju- 
risdiction, p.  25.  We  can  not  concur 
in  the  views  of  the  author,  for  it  seems 
to  us  that  if  a  court  has  jurisdiction  of 
a  general  class  of  cases,  or  of  a  gen- 
eral subject,  its  jurisdiction  is  general, 
and  not  special.  It  may  be  true  that 
the  mode  of  procedure  is  a  statutory 
one,  and  yet  the  court  may  be  one 
of  general  jurisdiction,  so  that  it  will 
not  do  to  fix  the  rank  of  the  court  be- 
cause its  authority  is  defined  by  stat- 
ute or  its  procedure  is  statutory. 


§  152 


COURTS 


131 


very  difficult  to  conclude. that  some  courts  are  of  general  juris- 
diction in  States  where  the  statute  makes  their  authority  a  wide 
and  comprehensive  one,  hut  this  hy  no  means  justifies  the  con- 
clusion that  a  definition  can  he  framed  tliat  will  he  accurate  or 
adequate.^  In  some  of  the  States  tliere  is  no  great  difficulty 
in  determining  that  the  court  of  common  pleas  is  one  of  gen- 
eral jurisdiction,  as,  for  instance,  in  Ohio,  or,  as  in  Indiana, 
that  the  circuit  court  is  one  of  that  class,  or,  as  in  Iowa,  that 
the  district  court  is  one  of  general  jurisdiction.  It  will  not  do 
to  assert  that  courts  from  whieli  appeals  lie  are  inferior,  since 
that  would  lower  all  trial  courts  to  courts  of  limited  inferior 
jurisdiction,  and  no  well  considered  case  warrants  such  a  con- 
clusion.^     A  court  may  he  one  of  the  widest  possihle  general 


'  Mr.  Brown  justly  notes  the  diffi- 
culty of  discriminating  between  courts 
of  general  jurisdiction  and  courts  of 
inferior  jurisdiction.  In  one  place  he 
says:  "A  court  of  general  jurisdiction 
is  one  that  takes  cognizance  of  all 
causes,  civil  or  criminal,  of  a  particu- 
lar nature,  defined  and  provided  by 
law.  Absolute,  original,  general  ju- 
risdiction overall  subjects  out  of  which 
an  action  or  prosecution  may  arise  is 
not  given  to  one  court."  Brown  on 
Jurisdiction,  §  19.  It  seems  to  us  that 
this  statement  requires  some  qualifi- 
cation, for  we  believe  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  give  to  a  judicial  tribunal 
the  character  of  a  court  of  general  juris- 
diction that  it  should  have  jurisdiction 
"of  all  causes,  civil  or  criminal,  of  a 
particular  nature."  We  think  that  the 
learned  author  states  the  true  doctrine 
when  he  says:  "  Where  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court  is  general  over  any 
class  of  actions,  it  can  not  be  regarded 
as  having  only  inferior  jurisdiction. 
Therefore  the  rule  is  that,  where  a 
court  is  given  complete  or  general  ju- 
risdiction over  any  class  of  actions,  if 
it  be  a  court  of  record,  it  is  not  a 
court  of  inferior  jurisdiction,  although 
its  jurisdiction  is  limited."     Ibid,  §  20. 


In  support  of  the  text  is  cited  the  case 
of  Pursley  v.  Hayes,  22  Iowa,  11, 
wherein  the  court  refers  to  Perrine  v. 
Farr,  2  Zabr.  (N.  J.)  356,  and  other 
cases. 

'  In  Kempe  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cr.  173, 
185,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  said : 
"All  courts  from  which  an  appeal  lies 
are  inferior  courts,  in  relation  to  the 
superior  court  before  which  their  judg- 
ment may  be  carried ;  but  they  are 
not,  therefore,  inferior  courts,  in  the 
technical  sense  of  these  words.  They 
apply  to  courts  of  a  special  limited  ju- 
risdiction, which  are  erected  on  such 
principles,  that  their  judgments,  taken 
alone,  are  entirely  disregarded,  and 
the  proceedings  must  show  their  juris- 
diction. The  courts  of  the  United 
States  are  all  of  limited  jurisdiction, 
and  their  proceedings  are  erroneous  if 
jurisdiction  be  not  shown  upon  them. 
Judgments  rendered  in  such  cases  may 
certainly  be  reversed,  but  this  court  is 
not  prepared  to  say  that  they  are  ab- 
solute nullities,  which  may  be  totally 
disregarded."  It  is  evident  that  the 
great  Chief  Justice  saw  the  difficulty 
which  resulted  from  the  doctrine  that 
all  American  courts  are  courts  of  lim- 
ited jurisdiction,  and,  while  not  will- 


132  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  153 

original  jurisdiction,  and  yet  its  judgments  be  subject  to  re- 
view, revision  or  reversal  by  the  appellate  tribunals  of  the  State 
or  nation. 

§  153.  Courts  oJt  limited  Jurisdiction. — We  think  that  it  may 
be  safely  assumed  that  all  American  courts,  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest,  are,  in  a  restricted  sense,  courts  of  limited  jurisdic- 
tion,^ but  they  are  not  courts  of  limited  jurisdiction  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  term  is  often  used.  It  is  true  of  courts  ex- 
isting as  creations  or  growths  of  the  common  law,  as  well  as 
of  courts  created  by  statutes  or  by  constitutions,  that  there  are 
limitations  upon  their  jurisdiction.  Courts  existing  without 
express  statutory  or  constitutional  warrant  are  bound  by  rules 
and  precedents  ^  which  have  force  as  great  as  that  of  written 
laws,  and  on  the  other  hand,  statutory  or  constitutional  courts 
have  inherent  powers.  It  is  by  no  means  necessary  that  the 
powers  oi  any  tribunal  should  be  specifically  enumerated,  for 
the  creation  of  a  court  carries  by  implication  the  authority  and 
duty  essential  to  its  existence  and  necessary  to  enable  it  to  ac- 
complish the  objects  for  which  it  was  created.  It  can  not  be 
concluded  that  a  court  is  one  of  inferior  jurisdiction  because  of 
the  fact  that  its  jurisdiction  and  procedure  are  governed  by 

ingto  deny  the  doctrine,  was  unwilling  equitable,  or  to  transactions  of  a  spe- 
to  carry  it  to  its  logical  consequences,  cial  character,  such  as  arise  on  navi- 
The  later  decisions  very  clearly  de-  gable  waters  or  relate  to  the  disposi- 
clare  that  the  Federal  courts  are  not  tion  of  estates,  or  to  the  use  of  partic- 
inferior  courts  within  the  meaning  at-  ular  process  in  the  enforcement  of 
tached  to  these  words  by  the  common  their  judgments."  By  the  court  in 
law.  McCormick  v.  SulUvant,  10  Windsor  u.  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  274. 
Wheat.  192 ;  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  "  Even  courts  of  chancery  with  their 
193 ;  United  States  Bank  v.  Moss,  6  judge  created  jurisdiction  and  modes 
How.  31 ;  Kennedy  v.  Georgia  State  of  procedure  are  courts  of  limited  ju- 
Bank,  8  How.  58G ;  Fluff  v.  Hutchinson,  risdiction,for  rules  and  precedents  con- 
14  How.  586 ;  Galpin  v.  Page,  18  Wall,  trol  them.  Gee  v.  Pritchard,  2  Swanst. 
350,365;  Cuddy,  Petitioner,  131  U.  402,  414;  Cowper  v.  Cowper,  2  P. 
S.  280,  285.  Williams,  720,  723;  Manning  v.  Man- 
i"All  courts,  even  the  highest,  are  ning,  1  Johns.  Ch.  530;  King  t'.  Bald- 
more  orlessHmited  in  their  jurisdic-  win,  2  Johns.  Ch.  527;  Shotwell  v. 
tion;  they  are  limited  to  particular  Smith,  20  N.J.  Eq.  79;  Segar  «.  Par- 
classes  of  actions,  such  as  civil  or  rish,  20  Gratt.  672;  Pratt  v.  Pond,  5 
criminal;  or  to  particular  modes  of  Allen,  59;  Cannon -y.  McNab,  48  Ala. 
administering  relief,  such  as  legal  or  99. 


§  154  COURTS.  133 

law,  for  the  assertion  of  such  a  conclusion  is  an  affirmation 
that  there  are  no  courts  of  superior  jurisdiction.  It  is,  there- 
fore, necessary  to  obtain  some  other  ground  upon  which  to 
base  a  distinction  between  inferior  and  superior  tribunals,  and, 
for  our  part,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  find  any  valid  ground  for  the 
distinction,  notwithstanding  the  many  decisions  which  impli- 
edly recognize  its  existence.  We  can  plainly  see  solid  ground 
upon  which  to  rest  a  distinction  between  special  statutory  trib- 
unals and  courts,  but  we  can  not  see  a  reason  for  discriminat- 
ing between  classes  of  courts  established  as  such,  given  a  per- 
manent existence  and  invested  with  original  or  appellate  juris- 
diction over  a  general  class  of  cases  or  over  many  classes  of 
cases. 

§  154.   The  test  for  determining  the  rank  of  a  court. — It  is 

with  hesitation  that  we  venture  to  suggest  a  test  for  determin- 
ing whether  a  court  is  one  of  general  original  jurisdiction  or 
one  of  inferior  and  limited  jurisdiction,  for  we  know  quite  well 
that  the  test  which  seems  to  us  the  correct  one  is  not  recog- 
nized by  the  majority  of  the  courts.  But,  while  we  know  tliat 
many  cases  oppose  our  opinion,  we  are  sure  that  the  express 
decisions  in  many  cases  and  the  reasoning  in  more,  yield 
ample  support  to  our  views,  so  that  we  are  not  simply  assert- 
ing our  own  unsupported  conclusions.^     The  test  we  suggest  is 

'Chicago,  etc.,    Co.   v.   Sutton,    130  463;    Bennac  v.  People,  4  Barb.  31; 

Ind.  405;  Jackson  v.  Smith,  120  Ind.  McLaughlin  v.  Etchison,  127  Ind.  474, 

520;  State  v.  Wolever,  127  Ind.  30G;  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  152. 
Turner  v.  Conkey,  132  Ind.  248,  S.  C.        We  think  it  clear  that  the  cases  which 

31  N.  E.  R.  777;  Alexander  v.   Gill,  hold  that  where  there  is  jurisdiction 

130  Ind.  485,  30  N.  E.  R.  525 ;  Otis  v.  over  a  general  class  of  cases  the  court 

De  Boer,  116  Ind.  531 ;  Tallman  v.  'Sic-  as  to  the  subject  is  one  of  general  juris- 

Carty,ll  Wis.420;  Colton  r.Beardsley,  diction  declare  the  true   rule.     State 

38  Barb.  29;  Otis   i'.   Rio  Grande,  1  v.    Kansas    Court    of    Appeals,    104 

Woods,    279,   282.      This  doctrine  is  Mo.    419,    S.    C.    16    S.    W.    R.    415. 

asserted,  although  generally  only  tac-  See    Posthlewaite     r.     Ghiselin,    97 

itly,   in   the    numerous    cases   where  Mo.   420.     See,   generally,    McCoy   ?'. 

courts  sustain  the  judgment  of  com-  Able,  131  Ind.  417,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.   R. 

mitting  magistrates  where  attacks  are  528;  Hume  v.  Conduitt,  76  Ind.  598; 

made  upon  them   in   appHcations  for  Brown  v.  Eaton,  98  Ind.  591 ;  Perkins 

habeas  corpns.     Oteiza  v.  Jacobus,  136  v.  Haywood,  132  Ind.  95,  S.  C.  31  N. 

U.  S.  330;  Stevens  v.  Fuller,  136  U.  S.  E.  R.  670. 
-468;  People  r.  St.  Dominick,  34  Hun, 


134  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  154 

this :  lias  the  particular  tribunal  permanent  existence,  has  it 
authority  over  a  general  subject,  is  it  authorized  to  keep  a  rec- 
ord and  will  its  judgments  support  a  plea  of  former  adjudica- 
tion? If  the  court  has  a  permanent  existence  it  is  in  that  re- 
spect the  equal  of  the  highest ;  if  it  has  original  jurisdiction 
over  a  general  subject  in  that  particular  its  authority  is  not 
more  limited  than  that  of  other  judicial  tribunals;  if  it  is  au- 
thorized to  keep  a  record  it  is  as  much  a  court  of  record  as  any 
tribunal  can  be ;  if  its  judgments  will  support  a  plea  of  former 
adjudication  they  are  in  this  regard  as  powerful  and  influential 
as  those  of  any  other  court,  no  matter  how  high  its  position  or 
great  its  dignity.  The  judgment  of  a  board  of  county  commis- 
sioners will  support  a  plea  of  former  adjudication.^  The  judg- 
ment of  any  permanent  tribunal  upon  facts  which  it  is  required 
to  decide  upon  before  assuming  jurisdiction  is  conclusive  as 
against  a  collateral  attack.^  The  refusal  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace  to  grant  a  change  of  venue,  or  a  change  of  justices,  does 
not,  according  to  the  weight  of  authority,  render  the  subse- 
quent proceedings  void.'^  A  board  of  county  commissioners  or 
supervisors  does  not  lose  jurisdiction,  although  it  wrongfully 
refused  to  permit  the  withdrawal  of  a  sufficient  number  of  pe- 
titioners from  the  petition  to  make  the  number  less  than  that 
requisite  to  the  existence  of  jurisdiction.'*  In  these  respects,  and 
in  many  other  particulars,  statutory  tribunals  are  held  to  pos- 
sess powers  equally  as  great  as  those  of  the  highest  courts  of 

'State  V.  Board,  101  Ind.  69;  Hill  v.  neney  v.  Town   of  Sullivan,  125  Ind. 

Probst,  120  Ind.  528.  407,  412;  Montgomery  v.  Wasem,  116 

'  Commissioners  of  Knox  County  v.  Ind.  343,  351 ;    Ballard  v.  Thomas,  19 

Aspinwall,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  539;  Town  Gratt.  14,  20. 

ofColoraaw.  Eaves,  92  U.S.  484;  Com-        "Bryant  v.   Ballance,   66    111.    188; 

missioners  v.   Bolles,   94  U.   S.   104;  Swan  v.  Bournes,  47  Iowa,  501;  City 

Henline  v.  People,  81  III.  269;  Rod-  of  Ottumwa  v.  Schaub,  52  Iowa,  515; 

erigas  t\  East  River,  etc.,  Co.,  63  N.  Barnhart  i'.  Davis,  30  Kan.  520;  Tur- 

Y.  460,  S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  555;  Porter  v.  ner  v.  Conkey,  132  Ind.  248,  S.  C.  31 

Purdy,  29  N.  Y.  106;  Ryan  v.  Vargas,  N.  E.  R.  777. 

37   Iowa,  78;  Smith's  Leading  Cases        *  Rock  Creek  v.  Strong,  96  U.  S.  271 ; 

(8th  Am.  ed.),  1116;  Evansville,  etc.,  Orleans  v.  Piatt,  99  U.  S.  676;  Lyons 

Co.  V.  The  City  of  Evansville,  15  Ind.  •;;.   Munson,   99  U.   S.   684 ;    Town   of 

395;  Alexander  v.  Gill,  130  Ind.  485,  Springport  v.  Teutonia  Bank,  84  N.  Y. 

S.   C.   30  N.  E.  R.  525,   527;     McEn-  403,  co?Ura;  Hordi;.  Elliott,  33  Ind.  220. 


§  155  COURTS.  135 

original  jurisdiction,  and  hence  it  seems  illogical  to  hold  that 
such  statutory  tribunals,  although  having  wide  exclusive  orig- 
inal jurisdiction  and  a  permanent  existence,  arc  courts  of  lim- 
ited inferior  jurisdiction. 

§  155.  Legislative  courts — Influence  of  fundanieiital  prin- 
ciples.— The  fact  that  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  is  defined  by 
statute  does  not  exclude  the  rules  of  the  common  law  unless 
the  exclusion  appears  by  express  words  or  necessary  implica- 
tion. The  legislature  niay,  of  course,  define  the  jurisdiction 
of  a  court  it  has  power  to  create,  by  designating  the  classes  of 
cases  or  the  subjects  over  which  its  authority  shall  extend,  but, 
in  doing  this,  the  whole  field  of  jurisdiction  is  not  covered,  for 
certain  principles  of  organic  unwritten  law  enter  into  tlie  stat- 
ute as  silent  factors.  These  factors,  powerful  as  they  are,  can 
not  always  control  the  general  subjects  and  classes,  but  they  do 
control  as  to  incidents  of  such  subjects  and  classes.  Thus  a 
court  has  authority  without  any  express  statute  to  make  nunc 
pro  tunc  orders,  and  to  frame  the  remedy  so  as  to  give  appro- 
priate relief.  Fundamental  principles  can  not  be  violated  in 
creating  courts  although  such  principles  are  not  given  direct 
and  explicit  expression  in  the  constitution.  Broad  as  the  leg- 
islative power  is  under  a  general  grant  of  authority  to  estab- 
lish courts,  it  can  not  violate  principles  that  form  part  of  the 
foundation  of  the  judicial  structure.  Thus,  the  legislature  can 
not  make  a  man  a  judge  in  his  own  case  although  there  may 
be  no  express  provision  in  the  constitution  forbidding  such  leg- 
islation. The  reason  for  this  conclusion  is  that  the  principle 
that  a  man  shall  not  be  a  judge  in  his  own  case  is  part  of  the 
foundation  of  the  judicial  system,  and  was  part  of  it  when  our 
American  constitutions  were  adopted.  As  this  fundamental 
principle  was  part  of  an  organized  and  existing  system,  the 
constitution  must  be  deemed  to  so  far  have  recognized  and 
sanctioned  it  as  to  make  it  binding  upon  the  legislature  as  well 
as  upon  all  the  other  organs  of  government.  The  principle 
that  written  constitutions  are  to  be  construed  with  reference  to 


136  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  156 

existing  and  organized  institutions  of  society"  really  involves 
and  requires  the  conclusion  we  have  stated,  and  it  has  been  di- 
rectly asserted  by  able  courts  and  authors. ^  There  is  a  spirit 
in  constitutions  more  powerful  than  the  words.  We  constantly 
call  to  mind  in  considering  constitutional  questions  great  his- 
torical events  and  instruments,  as  the  Magna  Charta,  the  Peti- 
tion of  Right,  and  the  like,  and  it  is  the  principles  of  which 
great  events  and  great  instruments  are  the  expressions  and  wit- 
nesses that  give  life  and  vigor  to  written  constitutions.  If  it 
were  not  for  these  principles  the  words  of  constitutions  would 
be  dead  and  powerless.^  It  is,  therefore,  true  that  all  princi- 
ples that  undergird  and  uphold  the  government  are  not  ex- 
pressed in  words,  but  have  their  life  and  abiding  place  in  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  so  that  in  determining  the  authority 
of  the  legislature  in  creating  courts  we  must  often  go  behind 
the  words  of  the  constitution  to  the  principles  which  it  sanc- 
tions and  confirms. 

§  156.   Inherent  and  implied  powers  of  courts. — It  is  not 

necessary  that  the  statute  should  specifically  and  in  detail 
designate  the  authority  or  power  of  a  court.  The  creation  of 
a  court  brings  into  existence  powers  and  duties  essential  to  the 
discharge  of  judicial  authority  without  any  specification  of  such 
powers  and  duties.*    What  constitutes  judicial  power,  and  what 

'  Durham  v.  State,  117  Ind.  477 ;  Van  tions  be  accepted  as  true,  the  conclu- 

Walters  V.  Board  of  Children's  Guar-  sion  is  irresistible  that  the  fundamental 

dians,  132  Ind.  567,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  56;  principles  which  form  the  State  can 

Johnston    v.  State,    128  Ind.  16,  18;  not  be  created  by  any  governmental 

State  V.  Noble,    118  Ind.   350,   361.  or  popular  edict ;  they  are  necessarily 

*  Cooley  Const.  Lim.  510;  Ames  v.  found  imbedded  in  the  national  char- 
Port  Huron,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Mich.  139;  acter,  and  are  developed  in  accordance 
Hall  TJ.  Thayer,  105  Mass.  219 ;  State  with  the  national  growth."  The  Un- 
r.  Crane,  36  N.J.  L.  394;  Cypress,  etc.,  written  Constitution  of  the  United 
Co.  V.  Hooper,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  350;  States,  16.  See  State  v.  Denny,  118 
Scuffletown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McAllister,  12  Ind.  .382. 

Bush.  312;    Reams  u.  Kearns,  5  Cold.  ♦  Smythe  v.  Boswell,  117  Ind.  365; 

(Tenn.)  217;  Lanfear  t).  Mayor,  4  La.  Boswell   v.    Boswell,   117    Ind.  599; 

97,  S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  477.  Nealis  v.  Dicks,  72  Ind.  374;  Ex  parte 

'Professor  Tiedeman,  after  giving  Robinson,   19  Wall.    505;     Ex  parte 

definitions  of  a  constitution,  and  con-  Terry,    128  U.S.    289;    Anderson  v. 

stitutional  law,  says :  "  If  these  defini-  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  204;  Little  v.  State, 


§  157  COURTS.  137 

attributes  are  incident  to  judicial  tribunals  are  matters  of  which 
knowledge  is  taken  witliout  any  positive  statutory  specifica- 
tions. They  are  known  because  they  existed  before  written 
constitutions  were  adopted  or  statutes  enacted,  and  they  are 
sanctioned  and  confirmed  by  the  organic  and  the  statutory  law. 
Constitutions  are  to  be  interpreted  as  the  work  of  men  writing 
where  organized  society  exists  and  with  reference  to  existing 
institutions.^ 

§  157.  Court  can  not  divest  itself  of  Jurisdiction. — Where 
the  law  invests  a  court  with  jurisdiction  over  a  class  of  cases 
and  authority  over  a  case  belonging  to  the  class  is  once  effec- 
tively acquired,  it  must  be  exercised.  There  is  no  election  on 
the  part  of  the  court.  The  law  conferring  jurisdiction  is  im- 
perative, and  must  be  obeyed."'^  A  court  can  not  by  its  own 
voluntary  action  deprive  parties  of  the  rights  with  which  the 
law  invests  them,  nor  can  it  escape  the  duty  it  owes  to  the  pub- 
lic to  exercise  the  functions  and  duties  devolved  upon  it  by 
law.  The  authority  to  decide  and  the  duty  to  decide  are  co- 
existent, and  where  the  authority  exists  there  dwells  the  duty. 
The  public  have  an  interest  in  the  judicial  system  of  a  State  or 
nation  as  well  as  individual  litigants  or  individual  judges^ 
and  that  interest  can  not  be  disregarded. •'* 

90  Ind.  338;  Hawkins  v.  State,  125  '  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  (.5th  ed.),  73; 
Ind.  570;  State  V.Morrill,  16  Ark.  384;  Durham  r.  The  State,  117  Ind.  477; 
People  1). Wilson,  64  111.  195;  Ex  parte  Johnston  v.  State,  128  Ind.  16,  18; 
Biggs,  64  N.  C.  202;  Commonwealth  r.  State  r.  Denny,  118  Ind.  382;  Davis 
Dandridge,  2  Va.  Cases,  408 ;  State  v.  v.  State,  119  Ind.  555, 556 ;  Van  Walters 
Matthews,  37  N.  H.  450;  Arnold  v.  u.  Board  of  Children's  Guardians,  132 
Commonwealth,  80  Ky.  300,  S.  C.  44  Ind.  567,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  56. 
Am.  R.  480;  Lire  Neagle,  14  Sawyer  '  Arroyo  Ditch  Co.  r.  Superior  Court, 
U.  S.  C.  C.  232,  S.  C.  5  Lawyers'  92Cal.  47,  S.  C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  91 ;  State 
Rep.  Anno.  78;  United  States  r.  Hud-  v.  Noble,  118  Ind.  350.  371.  An  officer 
son,  7  Cranch,  32;  In  re  Neagle,  135  under  a  duty  to  decide  can  not  right- 
U.  S.  1.  A  very  able  and  instructive  fully  escape  that  duty.  O'Brien  v. 
article  upon  this  general  subject  from  Moss,  131  Ind.  99,  102. 
the  pen  of  Mr.  Justice  Henry  B.  ^  Speaking  of  tlie  general  duty  to  de- 
Brown  will  be  found  in  volume  xii  of  cide  cases  within  their  jurisdiction, 
the  reports  of  the  American  Bar  Asso-  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York 
ciation,  p.  263.  See,  also,  Belvin  v.  said:  "  If  this  provision  were  intcnd- 
Richmond,  85  Va.  574.  ed  solely  for  the  protection  of  the  oourt 


138  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  158 

§  158.  Term — When  it  begins. — The  term  of  court  is  gen- 
erally held  to  commence  on  the  day  it  actually  convenes  in 
session.  It  is  sometimes  important  to  determine  when  a  term 
does  begin,  especially  is  this  so  in  jurisdictions  where  the  liens 
of  judgments  attach  on  the  first  day  of  the  term,  although  ren- 
dered at  a  later  date  during  the  term.  The  question  has  arisen 
between  lien-holders,  and  the  decisions  are  that  the  lien  of  a 
judgment  does  not  attach  until  the  court  is  opened.^ 

§  159.  Duration  of  the  term. — The  term  is  the  period  pre- 
scribed by  law.^  Thus,  if  the  law  provides  that  the  term  shall 
be  six  weeks,  that  is  the  term,  in  legal  contemplation,  although 
the  judge  may  be  absent  during  part  of  that  period.  It  has, 
indeed,  been  held  that  the  period  prescribed  constitutes  the 
term  whether  there  be  any  actual  session  or  not.^  Where  the 
duration  of  a  term  is  definitely  fixed  the  term  ends,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  at  the  time  prescribed,  but  where  a  trial  is  in  progress 
the  term  may  be  prolonged  so  as  to  conclude  the  trial.*  It  has 
been- held  that  where  the  term  provided  for  is  required  to  be- 
gin on  Monday  and  continue  in  session  for  one  week,  it  will 
close,  by  operation  of  law,  at  twelve  o'clock  of  the  following 

or  its  judges  they  might  waive  it,  but  court  have  convened.     There  can  be 

we  do  not  think  it  was  so  intended,  no  term  of  court  unless  there   is  a 

It  was,  in  our  judgment,  intended  for  court.     To  fix  a  time  by  law  to  hold 

the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  to  se-  court  does  not  make  a  court." 

cure  litigants  a  forum  in  which  they  '^  Bush  v.  Doy,  1  Kan.  86;  Horton  v. 

might  have  these    controversies  ad-  Miller,  38  Pa.  St.  270.     See,  generally, 

judged.     The  jurisdiction  which  the  Napper  v.  Noland,  9  Port.  (Ala.)  218; 

constituti(m   preserves  in  the   courts  Ex  jxu'te  Wreiord,  40  Ala.  ?)78;  People 

named  is  inalienable,  and  carries  with  v.  Sanchez,  24  Cal.  17 ;  Moore  v.  Felka], 

it  on  the  part  of  those  courts  to  exer-  7  Fla.  44;    Weatherford  v.  Shegag.  U\S 

cise  it  when  called  upon  in  proper  Ga.  194;    Wight  ?;.  Wallbaum,  39  111. 

form  to  do  so."     Alexander  v.  Ben-  554;  Addington  v.  Wilson.  5  Ind.  137: 

nett,  60  N.  Y.  204.  Seymour  v.  State,  15  Ind.  288;    Red- 

1  Follett  V.  Hall,  16  Ohio,  111,  S.  C.  wine  v.  State,  15  Ind.  293;    Swails  v. 

47  Am.  Dec.  365;  Davis  v.  Messenger,  Coverdill,21Tnd.271  ;  Barrett?;.  State, 

17  Ohio  St.  231 ;  Hemminway  v.  Davis,  1  Wis.  175 ;  Revel  v.  State,  26  Go.  275. 

24  Ohio  St.  150.  In  the  case  first  cited  ^  Downey  v.  Smith,  13  111.  671.    See, 

it  was  said:  "At  what  time,  then,  does  generally,   Norwood  v.   Kenfield.    34 

a  term  of  court  begin?     It  can  not  be  Cal.  329 ;  McAfee  v.  State,  31  Ga.  41 1 ; 

said  that  a  term  of  court  commences  People  v.  Northrup,  50  Barb.  147. 

before  the  judges  authorized  to  hold  *  State  v.  Knight,  19  Iowa,  94. 


§  160  COURTS.  139 

Saturday  niglit.'  The  length  of  terms  and  the  right  to  pro- 
long them  are  so  much  matters  of  statutory  regulation  that 
rules  can  not  be  laid  down,  except  as  to  matters  where  general 
principles  are  of  contiolling  effect. 

§  160.   The  common  law  fiction  that  the  term  is  as  one  day. 

— The  common  law  judges,  proceeding  upon  a  fiction  of  their 
own  invention,  correspondent  to  that  invented  by  Parliament, 
regarded  a  term  of  court,  no  matter  how  long  its  duration,  as 
consisting  of  a  single  day.^  The  courts,  acting  upon  this  legal 
fiction,  referred  all  acts  to  the  first  day  of  the  term.-^  The  fic- 
tion gives  way  before  statutory  provisions,  and  where  a  statute 
either  expressly  or  by  implication  comes  into  conflict  with  the 
common  law  doctrine,  that  doctrine  must  yield.'* 

§  161.  Terms — Business. — Where  the  law  expressly  pre- 
scribes what  business  shall  be  transacted  at  a  particuilar  term, 
the  court  can  not,  without  error,  transact  any  other  business 
than  that  prescribed.-''  If,  however,  there  is  a  discretion  con- 
ferred upon  the  judge,  that  discretion  can  not  be  controlled; 
but  should  there  be  an  abuse  of  discretion,  resulting  in  anj' in- 
jury to  a  party,  the  appellate  courts  would  undoubtedh^  grant 
proper  relief  upon  seasonable  application  and  a  proper  presen- 
tation of  the  question.  It  has  been  held  that  a  court  can  not, 
by  an  arbitrary  rule,  declare  what  business  shall  be  transacted 
at  a  term  in  cases  where  the  law  provides  what  business  shall 

'  Favis  V.  Fish,   1   Greene    (Iowa),  '  Riohardson  r.  Beldam,  18  111.  App. 

406.     See,  generally,  Grable  v.  State,  527;  Manchester  r.  Ilerrington,  10  X. 

2  Greene  (Iowa),  559.  Y.  164;  Garrard  County  Court  v.  Mc- 

'  In  the  ease  of  Newhall  r.  Sanger,  Kee,    11    Bush.    (Ky.)    234;    State  v. 

D2  U.   S.   761,    765,   the    court    said:  Martin,  2  Iredeil  N.' C.  101. 

"The  appellee    invokes  the  doctrine  *  Clifton  v.  "Wynne,  81  N.  C.  160. 

that    judgments  of  a  court  during  a  ^  Wicks  r.  Ludwig,  9  Cal.  173;  Nor- 

term  are,  by  relation,  considered   as  wood  r.  Kenfield,  34  Cal.  329;    Ger- 

having  been  rendered  on  the  first  day  mond  v  People,  1  Hill,  343;  Mills  v. 

thereof.    There  is  a  fiction  of  law  that  Commonwealth,   13  Pa.  St.  627.     See 

a  term  consists  of  but  one  day,  but  Ex  parte  Bennett,  44  Cal.  84;    People 

such  a  fiction  is  tolerated  only  for  the  v.  Wicks  &  Jones,  20  Cal.  51. 
purposes  of  justice."   Gibson  v.  Chou- 
teau, 13  Wall.  92. 


140  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  162 

be  transacted.^  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  case  to  which  we 
have  referred  can  be  sustained,  for  the  regulation  of  business  is 
so  much  a  matter  of  discretion  that  it  is  only  in  very  clear 
cases  and  upon  a  clear  showing  that  the  rules  or  orders  of  the 
trial  court  arranging  the  calendar  and  declaring  what  causes 
shall  be  tried  can  be  reviewed  on  appeal.  The  general  rule  cer- 
tainly is,  that  the  regulation  of  matters  of  business  rests  largely 
and  almost  entirely  with  the  court  of  original  jurisdiction.  It 
is,  of  course,  conceivable  that  there  may  be  cases  where  there 
is  an  arbitrary  and  unreasonable  exercise  of  power,  constitut- 
ing an  abuse  of  discretion  justifying  the  interference  of  a  court 
of  review,  but  such  cases,  although  conceivable,  are  very  rare. 

§  162.  Terms  of  court — Time  of  holding;. — There  is  confu- 
sion and  conflict  upon  the  question  of  the  effect  of  a  judgment 
rendered  at  a  term  held  at  a  time  different  from  that  fixed  by 
law.  Some  of  the  courts  lose  sight  of  the  important  difference 
between  a  direct  and  a  collateral  attack,  and  assert  that  an  er- 
roneous decision  as  to  the  time  for  holding  a  term  renders  judg- 
ments pronounced  at  such  a  term  absolutely  void.  Our 
opinion  is  that  where  there  is  a  question  as  to  the  time  at  which 
a  session  or  term  may  be  held  that  is  fairly  debatable,  so  that 
there  is  an  actual  question  for  decision,  the  judgment  is  not 
void  although  it  may  be  erroneous.'^  If  erroneous  a  direct  at- 
tack may  prevail,  but  a  collateral  one  can  not.  If  there  is  no 
question  for  decision  and  the  term  is  held  in  plain  violation  of 

'  State  V.  Posey,  17  La.  Ann.  252,  S.  tion  of  the  court  in  holding  the  term, 
C.  87  Am.  Dec.  525.  It  is  a  wide  stretch  but  notwithstanding  the  fact,  as  ap- 
of  appellate  jurisdiction  to  hold,  as  pears  from  the  cases  cited  in  this  and 
was  done  in  the  case  referred  to,  that  other  notes,  that  the  weight  of  author- 
an  appellate  tribunal  may  substitute  ity  is  that  the  action  of  the  court  is 
its  judgment  for  that  of  the  nisi  prius  totally  void,  we  venture  to  say  that 
court  concerning  the  business  that  true  principle  requires  a  different  con- 
shall  be  transacted  at  a  designated  elusion.  See,  however,  Smithson  v. 
term.  Dillon,    16   Ind.    1H9;     CofEnberry   v. 

*We  do  not  doubt  that  it  is  error  Horrill,  5  Cal. 493;  Bowdenw. Hatcher, 

available  always  on  appeal,  where  the  83  Ga.  77,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  724;    Dal- 

question  is  made  and  saved,  to  hold  a  ton  v.  Libby,  9  Nev.  192 ;    Cooper  w. 

term  at  the  wrong  time,  although  there  American,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Colo.  318. 
may  be  fair  reason  supporting  the  ac- 


§  162  COURTS.  141 

a  positive  statute,  there  is  reason  for  declaring  that  the  pro- 
ceedings are  coram  nan  judice,  but  where  there  is  a  question 
to  be  determined,  whether  it  be  as  to  the  construction  of  a  con- 
stitution or  of  a  statute,  or  some  other  question  of  a  jurisdic- 
tional nature,  the  decision  upon  that  question  may  be  errone- 
ous but  it  can  not  be  justly  said  to  be  absolutely  void.  If  void 
it  may,  of  course,  be  treated  without  respect  and  everywhere 
disregarded.  Where  there  is  a  plain,  explicit,  and  positive 
statute  designating  the  time  at  which  terms  shall  be  held  there 
is  ground  for  asserting  that  there  is  no  question  for  decision, 
and  the  proceedings  may,  perhaps,  be  regarded  as  utterly  des- 
titute of  force  without  a  violation  of  principle.  But  even  in 
such  cases  there  is  reason  for  doubting  whether  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  tribunal  can  be  declared  utterly  void,  inasmuch  as 
it  may  be  said  with  fair  show  of  reason  that  the  tril)unal  is 
called  upon,  as  the  first  step  toward  the  exercise  of  authority, 
to  determine  whether  there  is  a  plain  and  explicit  statute.  It 
is,  at  all  events,  quite  clear  that  proceedings  should  not  be  con- 
demned in  a  collateral  attack  because  the  court  was  held  at  a 
time  not  authorized  by  law  where  there  is  a  debatable  question 
as  to  the  right  to  hold  it  at  the  time  it  was  actually  held.  The 
consequences  of  holding  judgments  void  are  disastrous  and 
often  work  injustice  to  innocent  parties  and  to  ministerial  offi- 
cers who  have  acted  upon  the  belief  that  the  courts  have  not 
defied  or  disobeyed  the  law  by  holding  an  entirely  unauthor- 
ized session.  It  is  going  quite  far  enough,  perhaps  too  far,  to 
hold  that  where  a  tribunal  assumes  to  sit  at  a  time  fixed  by  law 
its  judgments  are  void  if  the  time  at  which  the  term  was 
held  was  different  from  that  fixed  by  a  plain  and  unambiguous 
statute.  It  is  certainly  going  far  beyond  reason  or  right  to 
hold  that  judgments  given  at  a  term  held  at  a  different  time 
than  that  fixed  by  statute  are  entirely  void  although  there  may 
be  a  question  fairly  admitting  of  debate  as  to  the  time  at  which 
the  term  should  be  held.  Many  loose  expressions  in  the 
cases,  and,  indeed,  many  of  the  decisions,  require  limitation 
and  qualification,  for  the  broad  doctrine  they  assert  is  radically 
unsound  and  in   direct  conflict  with   settled   principles.     One 


142  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  163 

who  plows  through  the  decisions  upon  this  general  subject  will 
find  the  confusion  deepen  as  he  moves  on. 

§  163.    Terms  of   court — Holding;  at   improper  time. — The 

conflict  in  the  adjudged  cases  upon  the  subject  of  holding  courts 
at  a  time  other  than  that  prescribed  by  statute  is  a  stubborn 
one,  and,  as  indicated  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  some  of  the 
courts  have  gone  to  great  lengths.^  Those  courts  have,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  gone  beyond  principle  and  have  not  been  mind- 
ful of  the  principle  that  there  may  be  a  de  facto  tribunal  as  well 
as  de  facto  judges.  As  we  shall  show  when  we  come  to  con- 
sider the  question  of  judges,  there  may  be  de  facto  judges  al- 
though there  is  nothing  more  than  a  bare  color  of  right  to  hold 
the  office.  The  courts,  we  venture  to  say,  should  be  slow  to 
strike  down  judgments  upon  collateral  attacks,  and  should  never 
do  so  where  there  is  a  fairly  debatable  question  as  to  the  right 
of  the  court  to  hold  the  session  or  term.  Relief  may,  of  course, 
be  granted  where  there  has  been  an  injury  done  to  a  party  be- 
cause of  a  mistake  as  to  the  time  of  holding  the  term,  or  where 
there  is  excusable  ignorance,  but  the  relief  should  be  granted 
upon  some  other  ground  than  that  which  assumes  and  declares 
that  there  was  no  court.  There  is,  it  is  obvious,  a  wide  and 
plainly  marked  distinction  between  cases  where  the  assault  is 
a  direct  one  and  cases  where  it  is  purely  collateral.  Where 
the  attack  is  direct  and  the  objection  is  seasonably  made  and 
the  objection  properly  reserved,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 

'  Garlick  v.  Dunn,  42  Ala.  404 ;  Dunn  37  Texas,  32.  See,  generally,  Ex  parte 

V.  State,  2  Ark.  229,  S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec.  Maney,  38  Tex.  .344 ;  Wicks  v.  Ludwig, 

54;  McCoolr.  State,  7Ind.  378;  Grim-  9Cal. 173;  Norwoods.  Kenfield,34  Cal. 

mett  V.  Askew,  48  Ark.  151,  S.  C.  2  S.  329,  333;    Bates  v.  Gage,  40  Cal.  183; 

W.  R.  707;    Brumley  v.  State,  20  Ark.  Domingues  v.  Domingues,  4  Cal.  186; 

77 ;  Freeman  v.  Gaither,  76  Ga.  741 ;  State  v.  Robey,  8  Nev.  239 ;  Ex  parte 

Sellers  v.  Cheney,  70  Ga.  790;  Galusha  Roberts,  9  Nev.  44 ;  Haws  v.  Clark,  37 

V.    Butterfield,    2   Scam.    (111.)    227;  Iowa,  355;  Cain  r.  Goda,  84  Ind.  209; 

Packard^.  Packard,  34  Kan.  53;  Earls  Batten   v.   State,    80   Ind.   394.     The 

V.  Earls,   27  Kan.  538;  McDonald   v.  distinction  between  cases  where  there 

Bunn,  3Denio,  45,  49;  IIodgesT/'.Ward,  is  a  question  to  decide  and  authority 

1    Texas,   244;    In  re   Millington,   24  to  make  a  decision  is  pointed  out  in 

Kan.  214;  Robinson  v.  Ferguson,  78  Smurr  u.  State,  105  Ind.  125,  128. 
111.  538,   541;  Campbell  v.  Chandler, 


§  1G4 


COURTS. 


143 


proceedings  should  be  adjudged  erroneous.  So,  where  the 
time  at  which  the  term  is  liohl  is  one  forljidden  In'  hiw  there  is, 
in  strict  reason  and  hy  ck'ar  authority,  no  court;'  ])ut  when 
there  is  no  direct  prohibition  and  there  is  a  question  for  decis- 
ion, this  doctrine,  we  say  again,  ought  not  to  prevail  where 
there  is  a  purely  collateral  attack  and  no  equitable  grounds,  as 
excusable  ignorance  or  mistake,  ui)on  whirli  the  party  is  en- 
titled to  relief.-  The  true  rule  is,  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  where 
there  is  general  authority  to  hold  a  term,  and  there  is  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  time  at  which  it  should  be  held,  there  is  nolhing 
more  than  error,  altliough  the  term  is  hold  at  the  wrong  tinie.^ 

§  164.  De  facto  terms. — Where  a  term  or  session  of  a  court 
is  held  by  judicial  officers  having  color  of  authority  and  color 
of  right  to  hold  the  session  or  term  there  is,  as  we  believe,  a 
de  facto  term,  although  there  may  not  be  one  dc  jure.  There 
may  be,  and  there  often  is,  a  de  facto  court, ^  and  if  there  mav 


»  Hemmensi'.  Bentley,  32  Mich.  89; 
In  re  Circuit  Court,  1  New  Zealand 
Court  of  Appeals,  329,  331 ;  Estes  v. 
Mitchell,  14.  Allen,  156;  Lampe  v. 
Manning,  38  Wis.  673;  Chapman  r. 
State,  5  Blackf.  Ill;  Shearman  v.  State, 
1  Texas  App.  215,  S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  402; 
Blood  V.  Bates,  31  Vt.  147. 

'Parker  v.  Kett,  1  Ld.  Raymond, 
658. 

'This  rule  is  thus  stated  in  a  late 
work:  "Whether  or  not  the  pro- 
ceedings of  a  judicial  tribunal  held  at 
a  time  not  fixed  by  law  are  void  col- 
laterally, the  decisions  somewhat  con- 
flict. The  majority  in  number  hold 
them  void,  while  a  small  minority  hold 
otherwise.  On  principle  I  think  the 
minority  right.  It  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  be  a  question  of  statutory  con- 
struction or  of  color  of  right,  but  a 
question  of  the  de  facto  organization 
of  the  tribunal.  The  statute  may  fix 
the  time  so  plainly  and  unequivocally 
that  all  contention  in  regard  to  its 
meaning  is  out  of  the   question.     It 


may  simply  be  overlooked,  and  a  term 
held  in  violation  of  it.  Yet  the  tribu- 
nal is  in  existence.  The  judges  and 
all  the  officers  are  present.  They  actu- 
ally set  the  judicial  wheels  in  motion, 
and  have  the  power  of  the  State  at 
command  to  enforce  obedience.  They 
have  the  reputation  of  being  what 
they  assume  to  be,  and  the  power  to 
enforce  their  assumption,  and  that 
makes  a  de  facto  tribunal  under  the 
best  approved  definition."  Van  Fleet 
Collateral  Attack,  §  .30;  Venable 
V.  Curd,  39  Tenn.  582;  Cheek  r. 
Merchants,  etc..  Bank,  65  Tenn.  489; 
Brewer  v.  State,  74  Tenn.  198,  203; 
Smurr  v.  State,  105  Ind.  125,  132,  S.  C. 
4  N.  E.  R.  445. 

*  In  the  case  of  Burt  r.  The  Winona, 
etc.,  Co.,  31  Minn.  472,  the  court,  after 
referring  to  the  general  doctrine  of  de 
facto  officers  and  citing  the  cases  of 
State  V.  Brown,  12  Minn.  490;  State  r. 
Carroll,  38  Conn.  449,  467;  State  r. 
Carr,  5  N.  H.  367;  People  v.  May- 
nard,    15   Mich.  463;  President,  etc.. 


144 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT 


§164 


be  a  de  facto  tribunal  capable  of  pronouncing  judgments  valid  as 
against  collateral  attacks  there  is  no  reason  why  there  may  not 


V.  Thompson,  20  111.  197;  Kettering  v. 
City  of  Jacksonville,  50  111.  39;  Town 
of  Geneva  v.  Cole,  61  111.  397 ;  Kayser 
V.  Trustees  of  Bremen,  16  Mo.  88; 
State  V.  AVeatherby,  45  Mo.  17 ;  City 
of  St.  Louis  V.  Shields,  62  Mo.  247, 
said : 

"  In  Secombe  v.  Kittelson,  29  Minn. 
555,  the  court  held,  in  effect,  that  there 
might  be  a  de  facto  State  government. 
In  the  line  of  these  authorities  are  the 
only  two  cases  we  have  found  in  which 
an  attempt  was  made  to  contest  col- 
laterally the  legal  existence  of  a  court. 
Fraser  v.  Freelon,  53  Cal.  644,  was  cer- 
tiorari to  review  the  proceedings  of 
the  municipal  court  of  appeals  of  San 
Francisco  in  a  private  action.  An  at- 
tempt was  made  to  draw  in  question 
the  legality  of  that  court.  The  Su- 
preme Court,  after  referring  to  the 
rule  in  case  of  a  de  facto  officer  said 
(647)  :  "It  is  manifest  that  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  office  itself,  which 
was  attempted  to  be  created  by  stat- 
ute, has  a  legal  existence,  is  of  vastly 
more  importance  and  of  greater  inter- 
est to  the  public  than  the  question  of 
the  right  of  the  incumbent,"  and  held 
that  the  question  could  not  be  raised 
except  in  an  action  or  proceeding  by 
the  State.  State  v.  Rich,  20  Mo.  393, 
was  an  appeal  from  a  judgment  of  the 
Lawrence  County  Circuit  Court, quash- 
ing an  indictment  found  in  and  re- 
moved into  it  from  the  Stone  County 
Circuit  Court,  on  the  ground  that  the 
latter  county  had  not  been  constitu- 
tionally established,  and  consequently 
there  could  be,  in  point  of  law,  no  such 
court  as  the  Stone  County  Circuit 
Court  where  an  indictment  could  law- 
fully be  found.  The  Supreme  Court 
held  (397)  that  "all  such  inquiries 
must  be  excluded  whenever  they  come 


up  collaterally,  and  the  county,  its 
courts  and  officers,  must  be  treated  as 
things  existing  in  fact,  the  lawfulness 
of  which  can  not  be  questioned,  un- 
less in  a  direct  proceeding  for  that 
purpose."  In  view  of  these  authori- 
ties, and  of  the  reason  that  underlies 
the  rule  applied  to  acts  of  persons  in 
the  actual  exercise,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, of  the  duties  of  public 
officers,  and  of  the  great  public  mis- 
chiefs that  might  sometimes  arise  but 
for  the  application  of  the  rule  to 
courts,  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion 
that  there  may  be  de  facta  courts  or 
offices,  the  legality  of  whose  existence 
can  not  be  questioned,  except  in  a  di- 
rect proceeding  by  the  State  for  that 
purpose. 

We  need  not  in  this  case  attempt  a 
definition  to  cover  all  instances  of  a 
court  or  office  de  facto.  It  is  enough 
to  determine  upon  the  particular  facts 
of  this  case.  But  we  may  go  so  far  as 
to  lay  down  this  proposition,  that 
where  a  court  or  office  has  been  estab- 
lished by  an  act  of  the  legislature  ap- 
parently valid  and  the  court  has  gone 
into  operation,  or  the  office  is  filled 
and  exercised  under  such  act,  it  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  de  facto  court  or  office 
— in  other  words,  that  the  people  shall 
not  be  made  to  suffer  because  misled 
by  the  apparent  legality  of  such  pub- 
lic institutions." 

Asserting  a  similar  doctrine  are  the 
cases  of  State  v.  Carroll,  38  Conn.  449, 
S.  C.  9  Am.  R.  409;  State  v.  Anone, 
2  Nott.  &  M.  27 ;  Gilliam  v.  Reddick,  4 
Iredell,  368;  State  v.  Porter,  1  Ala. 
688;  Anderson  v.  Claman,  123  Ind. 
471 ;  White  v.  Fleming,  114  Ind.  560; 
Wilson  V.  Board,  (58  Ind.  507;  Mayo 
V.  Stoneum,  2  Ala.  390;  Masterton  «. 
Matthews,  60  Ala.  260;  State  v.  All- 


^  165  COURTS.  145 

be  a  de  facto  term  in  which  judgments  may  be  rendered  against 
which  coUateral  attacks  can  not  prevail.    The  tribunal  is  greater 
than  the  term,  and  it  is  a  maxim  of  logic,  as  well  as  of  law, 
that  the  right  to  perform  the  greater  act  implies  the  right  to 
do  the  lesser.     But  in  order  to  make  the  term  a  de  facto  one 
there  must  be  color  of  right  to  hold  it,  and  it  must  be  held  by 
persons  who  are  not  mere  usurpers.     If  there  is  no  law  provid- 
ing for  the  office  there  can,  according  to  the  weight  of  author- 
ity, be  no  de  facto  officers,^  but  where  there  is  a  law  giving  a 
colorable  right  to  hold  the  office  or  the  term  there  is  a  jurisdic- 
tional question  for  decision,  and, as  elsewhere  shown, where  there 
is  such  a  question  and  a  decision  upon  it,  the  proceedings  can 
not  be  treated  as  absolute  nullities.    The  question  in  such  cases 
is  whether  there  is  a  colorable  riglit  to  liold  the  term  and  not 
whether  there  is  a  full  and  clear  legal  right.     If  there  is  a  full 
legal  right  there  is  no  room  for  the  presumption  of  validity  so 
often  spoken  of,  nor  office  for  the  often  asserted  rule  that  a  de- 
cision upon  questions  of  a  jurisdictional  nature  is  conclusive 
against  a  collateral  attack. 

§  1G5.  Place  of  hoklino:  court.— The  authorities  are  well 
agreed  upon  the  general  proposition  that  it  is  error  to  hold  a  term 
of  court  at  the  wrong  place.  Some  of  the  cases  go  further,  and 
assert  that  the  law  must  provide  a  place  for  holding  the  court, 
and  that  a  term  held  at  any  other  than  that  provided  is,  in 
every  instance,  absolutely  void.^  We  think  there  is  confusion 
and  error  in  many  of  the  decisions  upon  this  point.  Our  judg- 
ment is  that  if  the  parties  treat  the  place  as  the  proper  one,  and 

ing,  12  Ohio,  16;  Prezinger  v.  Har-  «  Tenny  v.  Filer,  8  Wend.  569;  King 
ness,  114  Ind.  491,  S.  C.  16  N.  E.  R.  v.  King,  1  Rawle  P.  &  W.  (Pa.)  15; 
495;  Prezinger  v.  Fording,  114  Ind.  Block  v.  Henderson,  82  Ga.  23,  S.  C.  8 
599,  16  N.  E.  R.  499;  Keene  v.  Mc-  S.  E.  R.  877;  Capper  v.  Sibley,  65 
Donough,8  Pet.308 ;  Meagher  v.  Storey  Iowa,  754,  S.  C.  23  N.  W.  R.  153 ;  Glass 
Co.,  5  Nev.  244;  Commonwealth  v.  v.  The  Sloop  Betsey,  3  Dallas,  6; 
McCombs,  56  Pa.  St.  436.  But  see  Doe  v.  AVhitaker,  5  B.  &  Ad.  409,  525. 
Kelly  V.  Bemis,  4  Gray,  83,  S.  C.  64  See,  generally,  :Mic-higan,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Am.  Dec.  50,  and  note.  North  Indiana,  etc., Co.,  3  Ind.  239  ;Mc- 
i/n  re  Allison,  18  Colo.  525,  S.  C.  16  Clare  v.  McCliirg,  53  Mo.  173;  Wight- 
Am.  St.  R.224;  Ex  parte  Stont,  5  Colo,  man  r.  Karsner,  20  Ala.  446;  Brum- 
509  ley  v.  State,  20  Ark.  77. 
10 


146  thp:  work  out  of  court.  §  165 

conduct  the  trial  upon  that  theory,  they  can  not  afterwards 
successfully  assail  the  proceeding  by  a  collateral  attack.  Much 
of  the  confusion  is  due  to  the  failure  to  discriminate  between 
void  and  voidable  proceedings.  This  is  a  fruitful  source  of 
error. ^  If  proceedings  are  absolutely  void,  no  act  of  the  parties 
can  impart  validity  to  them,  but  if  they  are  voidable  only  the 
parties  may  validate  them  by  their  acts  and  conduct.  We  are 
unable  to  resist  the  conclusion,  notwithstanding  the  weight  of 
authority,  that  the  true  rule  is  that  where  there  is  a  fair  ques- 
tion as  to  the  place  where  the  court  should  hold  its  term,  its 
decision  upon  that  question  is  sufficient  to  give  validity  to  the 
proceedings  as  against  a  collateral  attack.^  As  we  shall  show 
at  another  place,  the  general  rule  is  that  where  parties  consent 
to  the  holding  of  a  term  at  a  given  time  or  place,  and  there  is 
a  colorable  right  to  hold  the  term,  the  parties  will  not  be  al- 
lowed even  on  appeal  to  overthrow  the  judgment  because  the 
term  was  held  at  the  wrong  time  or  place.  If  the  act  of  the 
tribunal  in  holding  a  term  or  session  at  the  wrong  time  or  place 
was  absolutely  void,  it  could  not  be  given  vitality  by  express 
consent,  much  less  by  an  implied  waiver,  and,  this  being  true, 
it  can  not  be  true  that  the  act  is  absolutely  void,  for  a  void  act 
is  one  to  which  validity  can  not  be  imparted.  While  it  is  error 
to  hold  a  term  of  court  at  a  place  other  than  that  designated  by 
law,  the  term  "place  "  is  not  always  to  be  understood  as  sig- 
nifying a  particular  spot  or  building.''  Where  there  is  a  suf- 
ficient reason  for  not  holding  the  term  at  the  particular  place 

1  Earle  v.  Earle,  91  Ind.  27 ;  Smith  v.  Teal,  IG  Texas,  371 ;  Eeams  v.  McNail, 

Hess,  91  Ind.  424.     In  the   case   last  28Tenn.542;  Rogers «.  Loop,  51  Iowa, 

cited  it  was  said:     "  Some  confusion  41 ;  Price  v.  Peters,15  Abb.  Pr.  R.  197, 

has  been  brought  into  the  cases  by  the  200 ;  Gregory  v.  Bovier,  77  Cal.  121, 19 

use  of  the  terms   'void'   and   'void-  Pac.  R.  233;  Jones  i'.  The  Church,  etc., 

able,'  as  applied  to  judgments.    Judg-  15  Neb.  81,  S.  C.  17  N.  W.  R.  362 ;  Sew- 

ments  are   frequently  spoken  of    as  all   v.   Ridlon,   5   Greenl.  (Me.)  452; 

void,  because  they  may  be  so  declared  Cheatham  v.   Brien,  40   Tenn.    552; 

in  a  proper  proceeding."  Krueger  v.  Beckham,  35  Kan.  400,  S. 

'Bouildin  v.   Ewart,  63    Mo.  330;  C.  11  Pac.  R.  158;  Hudspeth  v.  State, 

Watts  V.  State,  22  Tex.  App.  572,  S.  C.  3  55  Ark.  323,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  183. 

S.  W.  R.  769 ;  State  v.  Peyton,  32  Mo.  '  Litchfield  Bank  v.  Church,29  Conn. 

App.   522,   528 ;  In  re  Allison,  13  Col.  137 ;  Lee  v..  State,  56  Ark.    4,  S.  C.  19  S- 

525,  S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  224;  Sevier  v.  W.  R.  16. 


§  160  COURTS.  147 

appointed,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  court-house,  the  court  may 
be  held  elsewhere  in  the  same  town  or  city.  The  judge  has 
undoubtedly  some  discretion  in  such  matters,  and  unless  it  is 
abused  to  the  prejudice  of  a  party  he  can  not  successfully  com- 
plain. The  place  of  holdinj;-  coui'l  is,  however,  always  a  mat- 
ter of  importance.  It  has,  indeed,  been  held  that  the  legis- 
lature itself  can  not  authorize  terms  of  a  court  of  general 
jurisdiction  to  be  held  elsewhere  than  at  the  county  seat.^  It 
lias  also  been  adjudged  that,  where  a  statute  requires  the  judges 
to  designate  the  places  of  holding  court,  the  statutory  com- 
mand must  be  obeyed. ^  The  same  general  principle  is  declared 
in  the  case  which  hold. 5  that  the  orders  of  a  judge  of  a  circuit 
court  made  in  a  county  of  his  circuit  other  than  the  county  in 
which  the  action  is  pending,  is  ineffective.^ 

§  16G.  Adjourned  terms— General  doctrine.— Where  there 
is  a  statute  positively  fixing  the  duration  of  a  term  and  giving 
no  authority  to  hold  an  adjourned  term,  the  court  can  not 
order  that  an  adjourned  term  be  held.  Many  of  the  cases  go 
so  far  as  to  assert  that  if  there  is  an  adjourned  term  held,  al- 
though there  is  color  of  authority  to  hold  it,  the  proceedings 
are  coram  non  judice,  if  the  term  is  held  at  an  unauthorized 
time.  With  this  extreme  view  we  can  not  agree.  Our  opinion 
is  that  wherever  there  is  color  of  authority  sufficient  to  call  in- 
to exercise  the  judicial  judgment,  the  proceedings  are  not  coram 
non  judice,  although  there  may  be  a  manifest  and  palpable  error 
of  judgment.  This  conclusion  rests  upon  the  broad  general 
principle,  which  we  have  already  referred  to,  that  where  there 
is  sufficient  ground  to  require  the  exercise  of  the.  judicial  judg- 
ment, and  that  judgment  is  called  into  exercise,  the  proceed- 
ings are  not  void.  If  there  is  anything  to  decide  there  is  neces- 
sarily some  matter  for  judicial  consideration,  and  if  the  judi- 
cial judgment  is  given  upon  that  matter,  there  is  no  valid  rea- 
son for  asserting  that  the  judgment  is  so  utterly  devoid  of  force 

»  Coulter  V.  Routt  County,  9  Col.  258.  »  Northrup  r.  People,  37  N.  Y.  203. 
See  Wheeler  v.  Wheeler,  76  Texas,  489,  » Gillespie  v.  See,  72  Iowa,  345,  S.  C. 
S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  305.  33  N.  Vr.  R.  676. 


148  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  1G7 

as  to  deprive  it  of  respect.  If  entitled  to  respect,  and  not  a 
thing  to  be  everywhere  disregarded,  and  by  everybody  treated 
as  devoid  of  force,  it  can  not  be  justly  adjudged  void.  If  there 
is  an  entire  absence  of  authority  to  consider  the  matter  at  all, 
or  if  the  court  assumes  to  act  without  color  or  appearance  of 
authority,  or  without  any  ground  whatever  for  assuming  to  de- 
cide, it  is  otherwise. 

§  107.    Adjourned  terms — Errors  and  irregularities. — It  is 

tlie  duty  of  a  court  to  follow  the  law  in  directing  and  holding 
adjourned  terms.  If  the  law  is  disobeyed  in  a  material  partic- 
ular, the  proceedings  may  be  assailed  as  erroneous  by  a  party 
who  properly  objects  and  duly  saves  exceptions.  But,  accord- 
ing to  what  we  regard  as  the  better  rule,  a  party  who  enters 
upon  a  trial,  or  participates  in  proceedings,  without  objection, 
can  not  assail  the.  proceedings  upon  the  ground  that  the  ad- 
journed term  was  irregularly  ordered  or  held.  By  proceeding 
without  objection,  he  waives  the  right  to  subsequently  assail  the 
orders  or  judgments  of  the  court  at  the  adjourned  term  it  as- 
sumed to  rightfully  hold.^  There  are,  however,  decisions  de- 
claring that  proceedings  at  an  adjourned  term  irregularly  held 
are  absolutely  void,  and  that  their  invalidity  is  not  waived  by 
the  consent  of  the  parties.^ 

§  1G8.  Order  for  adjourned  term. — Where  the  statute  makes 
specific  provision  for  holding  adjourned  terms  there  must,  in 
order  to  make  an  adjourned  term  valid  as  against  a  direct  attack 
appropriately  made,  be  a  substantial  compliance  with  the  require- 
ment of  the  statute,  and  an  order  which  is  substantially  and  ma- 

'  Louisville  v.  Power,  119  Ind.  269,        ^  Nabors  v.  State,  G  Ala.  200 ;  Galusha 

271;  vSchlunggerw.  State,  113  Ind.  295;  v.  Butterfield,  2  Scam.  227;  Gregg  u. 

Ardv.  State,  114  Ind.  542;  Mannix  t7.  Cooke,  7  Tenn.  82;  Davis  v.  Fish,   1 

State,    115   Ind.    245.      See    State   v.  G.   Greene    (la.),  406,  S.    C.  48  Am. 

Knight,  19  Iowa,  94 ;  Weaver  v.  Cool-  Dec.  387 ;  Grable  v.  State,  2  G.  Greene, 

edge,  15  Iowa,  244.  The  doctrine  of  the  559.     "Where  an  officer,  who  has  no 

text  is  fully  supported  by  analogous  authority  to  make  the  order,  assumes 

cases.     Thornton   v.  Baker,    15  R.  I.  to  order  an  adjourned  term  to  be  held, 

653,  S.   C.   2   Am.  St.  R.  925;  Ela  v.  the  order  is  a  mere  nullity.     Thomas 

McConihe,  35  N.  H.  279;  Railway  Co.  v.  Fogarty,  19  Cal.  644. 
V.  Ramsey,  22  Wall.  322. 


§  168  COURTS.  149 

terially  different  from  that  prescribed  would  not  sustain  proceed- 
ings as  against  such  an  attack.  Where  the  court  assumes  to  hold 
an  adjourned  term  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  show  that 
it  was  not  held  upon  a  proper  order  we  think  it  should  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  order  conformed  to  the  statute.  This  doctrine  is 
in  harmony  with  the  general  rule  that  the  proceedings  of  courts 
are  presumed  to  be  regular  and  legal  until  the  contrary  is  made 
to  appear,^  and  we  can  see  no  reason  why  this  general  rule  should 
not  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  support  for  the  doctrine  we  have 
stated. 2  The  presumption  always  is  that  where  there  is  gen- 
eral jurisdiction  the  proceedings  were  regular  and  legal/''  and 
this  presumption  ought,  in  reason,  to  be  given  effect  where  the 
question  is  as  to  the  validity  of  an  adjourned  term  of  court.  It 
is  obvious,  however,  that  this  presumption  can  not  prevail 
where  the  statute  definitely  and  explicitly  fixes  the  time  for 
the  terms  of  court  and  there  is  an  entire  denial  or  absence  of 
nuthority  to  hold  adjourned  terms.  It  has  been  held  that 
where  the  legislature  fails  to  designate  a  time  for  holding  court 
special  terms  may  nevertheless  be  held,*  but  while  this  doc- 

'Tracey  r.  Altmyer,  46  X.  Y.  598;  not  showing  to  the  contrary,  the  pre- 

Kennedy  1-.  McNichols,  29  Mo.App.ll ;  sumption  is  that  the  adjourned  term 

Chestnutt  v.  Pollard,  77  Tex.  86,  S.  C.  was  lawfully  held."     The  court  cited 

13S.  W.  R.  852;  Morisey  r.  Swinson,  the  cases  of  Washer  v.   Allensville, 

104  N.  Car.  555,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  754;  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ind.  78;  Green  r.  AVhite, 

Sidney,  etc.,   Co.   v.  Warsaw  School  18  Ind.  317.     See,  however,  Clelland 

District,  130  Pa.  St.  76,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  v.  People,  4  Colo.  244. 

R.  604;  Walters  t\  Tefft, 57  Mich.  390,  'Carman   r.  Pultz,   21   N.   Y.   547; 

S.  C.24N.W.R.117;  Bishop  r.Village  Smith  v.  Newland,  9  Ilun,  553,  554; 

of  Goshen,  120  N.  Y.  337,  S.  C.  24  N.  Phillip  r.  Gallant,  62  N.  Y.  256,  265; 

E.  R.   720;  Prilliman  v.  Mendenhall,  Traeey  v.  Altmyer,  46  N.Y.  598,  604; 

120  Ind.  279,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  247;  Swearingen  r. Wilson  (Tex. Civ. App.), 

Rapp  V.  Kester,  125  Ind.  79;  Welsh  r.  21  S.  W.  R.  74;  McDonald  r.  Dodge, 

State,  126  Ind.  71 ;  Beeler  r.  Hantsch,  97  Cal.  333,  31  Pac.  R.  909;    State  r. 

5   Blackf.   594;    Maxam    c.  Wood,   4  IMaloney  (Mo.),   20    S.    W.    R.   1064. 

Blackf.  297;  Reddington  r.  Hamilton,  ♦  In  re  Wells,  36  Kan.  341.     A  very 

8  Blackf.  62.  strict  rule  upon   the   general  subject 

*In  Wood  r.  Franklin,  97  Ind.  117,  was  laid  down  in  the  case  of  Hays  r. 

121,   it  was  said:     "And   if    a  suffi-  State, 39 Ga.  718,  although  it  was  there 

cient   notice  be  given  the  adjourned  held,  and  rightly,  as  we  believe,  that 

term  will  be  legal,  although  the  court  where  objection  was  not  properly  and 

made  no  order  as  to  notice.     Conrad  seasonably    interposed     the     parties 

V.  Johnson,  20  Ind.  421.     The  record  could  not  avail  themselves  of  the  error 


150 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§168 


trine  may,  perhaps,  be  upheld  under  peculiar  and  liberal  stat- 
utes it  is  one  that  can  not  be  safely  extended.  Parties  must, 
it  seems  to  us,  have  a  right  to  be  informed  by  a  public  law  or 
by  a  proceeding  substantially  conforming  to  such  a  law  of  the 
time  at  which  they  are  expected  to  appear  or  try  their  causes, 
for,  if  it  were  otherwise  they  could  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
time  when  steps  would  be  taken  in  causes  to  which  they  were 
parties.  The  decisions  are  generally  favorable  to  the  validity 
of  adjourned  terms  and  the  courts  are  reluctant  to  overthrow 
proceedings  at  such  terms. ^  But  while  the  rule  is  liberal  in 
favor  of  adjourned  terms,  yet  it  is  not  so  liberal  as  to  dispense 


or  irregularity.  In  tlie  case  referred  to 
it  was  said,  in  substance,  that  it  is  the 
imperative  duty  of  the  judge  of  supe- 
rior courts  to  liold  tlie  courts  at  tlie 
regular  times  fixed  bylaw,  and  he  has 
no  right  to  adjourn  any  of  said  courts 
from  the  regular  term  to  some  other 
time,  by  order  in  vacation,  unless  it 
is,  in  the  language  of  the  statute,  "  not 
possible  for  him  to  attend  the  regular 
term  of  said  court."  And  in  case  the 
judge,  by  order  in  vacation,  adjourns 
over  the  regular  term  of  the  court  to 
any  other  time,  for  any  other  cause 
than  those  expressed  by  the  statute, 
no  party  litigant  can  be  compelled  to 
trj'^  his  case  before  the  judge  at  such 
irregular  term.  But  if  the  parties  in 
a  civil  case  go  to  trial  without  objec- 
tion, they  will  not  afterward  Vje  heard 
to  set  up  irregularity. 

^  Where  the  judge,  being  absent  from 
the  State,  wrote  and  telegraphed  to 
the  clerk  to  adjourn  the  approaching 
term  of  court  to  a  further  date,  and  the 
clerk,  in  accordance  with  the  tele- 
gram, publishes  a  notice  of  the  ad- 
journment, and  notified  parties,  ju- 
rors and  witnesses,  but  no  proclama- 
tion of  the  adjournment  was  made  at 
the  day  for  opening  the  term,  and  the 
written  order  was  not  filed  nor  entry 


thereof  upon  the  record  made  until 
after  the  opening  of  the  term  at  the 
time  to  which  it  was  so  adjourned, 
nor  until  after  defendant,  who  was 
held  for  trial  at  the  regular  term  un- 
der a  continuance  from  a  previous 
term,  had  filed  his  protest  against 
being  tried  at  such  adjourned  term, 
held,  that  a  mine  x>ro  tunc  record  of 
the  order  was  sufficient,  and  the  trial 
of  the  defendant  was  properly  held 
at  the  adjourned  term,  no  prejudice 
being  shown.  State  v.  McGuire,  53 
Iowa,  1G5.  The  adjournment  of  the 
January  term  of  court  in  one  county 
to  a  term  subsequent  to  the  holding  of 
tlie  February  term  of  the  court  in  an- 
other court  of  the  same  district  has 
been  held  valid.  In  re  Hunter's 
Estate  (Iowa),  51  N.  W.  R.  20. 
Where  the  February  term  of  the 
district  court  was  continued  to  the 
24th  of  May  next  thereafter,  and  the 
court  did  not  convene  on  the  said  24th 
pursuant  to  adjournment,  the  court  is 
legally  open  until  it  adjourns  sine  die  or 
expires  by  law.  So  held  in  State  v. 
Bohan,  19  Kan.  28.  See,  also,  Tal- 
bert  V.  Hopper,  42  Cal.  397;  Cogswell 
V.  Schley,  50  Ga.  481 ;  State  v.  Holmes, 
50  Iowa,  588. 


§  169  COURTS.  151 

with  tlie  requisite  order  or  notice,' althougn  as  we  have  elsewhere 
shown,  when  due  notice  is  given,  the  form  of  the  order  is  not 
regarded  as  important.  It  is  inferable  from  the  language  em- 
ployed in  some  of  the  cases  that  if  notice  is  given  the  absence 
of  an  order  will  not  be  fatal,  but  we  regard  such  a  doctrine  as 
contrary  to  prin(i[)le,  inasmuch  as  we  believe  that  the  order  is 
essential  to  authorize  the  notice,  and  without  it  the  notice  is 
utterly  ineffective.  We  do  not  mean  to  be  understood  as  saying 
that  an  adjourned  term  upon  notice  only  is  always  coram  non  ju- 
dice,  for  we  incline  to  the  opinion  tluit  if  notice  is  given  and  the 
parties  appear,  or  proceed  with  a  trial,  without  objection,  they 
can  not  afterwards  successfully  question  the  validity  of  the 
proceedings. 

§  169.  Notice  of  adjourned  term. — A  liberal  rule  respecting 
notice  of  the  time  of  holding  an  adjourned  term  has  been 
adopted  by  the  courts  that  have  given  the  subject  careful  con- 
sideration.^ It  is  generally  held  that  a  substantial  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  statute  is  sufficient.  Some  of  the 
courts  go  very  far  in  holding  notices  of  adjourned  terms  to  be 
sufficientl}^  full  although  the  notices  depart  from  the  provisions 
of  the  statute. 

§  170.  Adjourned  term — Waiver  of  objections. — Where  the 
parties  are  in  court  when  a  time  for  an  adjourned  term  is  ap- 
pointed, they  are  bound  to  take  notice,  and  if  no  objections  are 
properly  and  seasonably  interposed  they  can  not  afterwards  be 
heard  to  object  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  order  or  notice.-^  But 
a  party  who  has  no  knowledge  of  the  adjournment,  and  neither 

'  Stovall  r.  Emerson,  20  Mo.  App.  the  omission  of  the  clerk  can  not  com- 

322.  plain.     The  plaintiff  in  error  was  not 

» In  "Wise  r.  State,  34  Ga.  348,  it  was  injured   in   the  present  case  by  such 

held  that  the  provisions  of  a  statute  as  omission.     As  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 

to  advertising  the  adjournment  of  the  publication    of   notice,  see  Board  v. 

superior  court  were  directory  to  the  State,  61    Ind.    75.      See,   generally, 

clerk,    and    although    not    complied  Green  u.  White,  18  Ind.  317;    Cordell 

with,  the  court  may  be  held  at   the  v.  State,  22  Ind.  1. 

time   fixed  in  the  order  of  adjourn-  ^Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Power,  119 

ment ;  and  a  party  not  prejudiced  by  Ind.  2G9,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  751. 


152 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§171 


impliedly  nor  expressly  acquiesces  in  the  action  of  the  court 
can  not  be  regarded  as  having  waived  any  rights.^  The  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  a  party  does  not  waive  objections  to  matters  of 
which  he  had  no  knowledge  and  was  not  under  a  duty  to  take 
notice;  but  as  to  one  who  has  knowledge,  or  is  bound,  in  con- 
templation of  law,  to  possess  knowledge,  the  rule  is  essentially 
different.^  Where  the  wrongful  action  goes  so  deep  as  to  be- 
come a  question  of  power,  we  suppose  it  clear  that  the  doctrine 
of  waiver  can  not  be  effectively  applied,  since  parties  can  not 
invest  courts  with  power  where  the  law  withholds  or  denies  it. 
We  make  and  mark  a  distinction  between  the  existence  of  power 
and  the  mode  of  its  exercise  or  employment. 

§  171.   Adjourned  term  regarded  as  continuance  of  regular 

term, — It  is  generally  held  that  an  adjourned  term  is  a  contin- 
uance of  the  regular  term.^  It  is  the  generally  accepted  doc- 
trine that  business  of  any  kind  remaining  unfinished  at  the 
regular  term  may  be  transacted  at  the  adjourned  term  held  pur- 
suant to  the  order  of  the  court.*     In  one  case  it  was  held  that 


'  Giles  t;.  Caines,  3  Caines  (N.  Y.), 
107;  Newbery  v.  Furnival,  56  N.  Y. 
638. 

*  Ridenhourti.  Kansas  City, etc.,  Co., 
102  Mo,  270,  283,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R. 
760;  Duigenan  v.  Claus,  46  Kan.  275, 
S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  699;  Mermory  v. 
Niepert,  33  111.  App.  131 ;  Bradwell  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  139  Pa.  St.  404, 

20  Atl.  R.  1046;  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Rush,  127  Ind.  545,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R. 
1010 ;  Montana  Ry.  Co.  v.  Warren,  137 
U.  S.  348;  Fisk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co., 
74  Iowa,  424,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  998 ; 
Tibbetts  v.  Penley,  83  Me.  118,  S.  C. 

21  Atl.  R.  838;  Williams  v.  Thomas,  3 
New  Mex.  324,  S.  C.  9  Pac.  R.  356; 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greiney,  137  111. 
628,  vS.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  798 ;  Bliley  v.  Tay- 
lor, 86  Ga.  163,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  283; 
Connelly  v.  Shamrock,  etc.,  Society, 
43  :Mo.  App.  283 ;  Clark  v.Flint,22  Pick. 
231 ;  First  Congregational  Society  v. 
Trustees,  23  Pick.  148 ;  Jones  v.  Keen, 


115  Mass.  170;  Matter  of  Cooper,  93 
N.  Y.  507  ;  Baird  v.  Mayor,  74  N.  Y. 
382. 

^People  V.  Ah  Ying,  42  Cal.  18; 
Smith  V.  Smith,  17  Ind.  75 ;  Leib  v. 
Commonwealth,  9  Watts.  (Pa.)  200; 
Fannon  v.  Plummer,  30  Mo.  App.  25; 
Cole  County  v.  Dallmeyer,  101  Mo.  57, 
13  S.  W.  R.  687;  Davis  v.  Finney,  37 
Kan.  165,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  460.  See, 
generally.  United  States  v.  Hood  (D. 
C),  19  Wash.  Law  R.  21 ;  Johnson  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Ohio  St.  318, 
S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  493 ;  Lowenberg  v. 
People,  27  N.  Y.  336;  Northrup  v. 
People,  37  N.  Y.  203;  Mechanics' 
Bank  v.  Withers,  6  Wheat.  106 ;  Van- 
dyke V.  State,  22  Ala.  57;  Keen  «. 
Queen,  10  Q.  B.  927 ;  Iliggins  v.  Rans- 
dall,  13  Mo.  205. 

*  Knight  V.  State,  70  Ind.  375 ;  Green 
V.  White,  18  Ind.  317;  Keith  v.  State 
(Ala.),  10  Lawy.  Rep.  Anno.  430,  S.  C. 
8  S.  R.  353. 


§  172  COURTS.  153 

an  indictment  may  properly  be  found  at  an  adjourned  term,^ 
but  we  suppose  that,  where  there  is  no  statute  authorizing^  en- 
tirely new  business  to  be  transacted,  a  grand  jury  could  not 
be  called  together  for  the  first  time  to  consider  cases  not 
pending  during  the  regular  term.  It  has  been  held  that  a  term 
can  not  be  kept  alive  by  an  order  of  adjournment,  assuming  to 
overleap  an  intervening  regular  term;  '^  but  other  cases  greatly 
limit  this  general  doctrine,  if,  indeed,  they  do  not  entirely 
deny  it.-"* 

§  172.  Temporary  adjoiiriimpiits. — An  adjournment  from 
one  day  to  another  in  term  is  a  radically  different  thing  from 
appointing  a  time  for  holding  an  adjourned  or  special  term  of 
court.  An  adjournment  from  a  day  in  term  to  another  day  in 
the  same  term  is  nothing  more  than  ordering  a  recess.  Such 
an  adjournment  does  not  end  the  term,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
the  term  continues,  and  business  may  be  resumed,  witliout 
special  order  or  notice,  when  the  recess  ends.^  The  power  to 
adjourn  from  time  to  time  during  the  term  is  said  to  be  "  one 
common  to  all  courts,"  and,  it  may,  as  we  think,  be  regarded 
as  an  incidental  power  residing  in  all  courts  unless  taken  from 

»  Ulmer  v.  State,  14  Ind.  52.  523 ;  Willis  v.  Elam,  28  La.  Ann.  858; 

'Jaquesi;.  Bridgeport,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Harris  i'.  Gest,  4  Ohio  St.  469 ;  Adicks 

Conn.  34.    See  State  v.  Williams,  48  v.  Allison,  21  S.  Car.  245;  De  Leon  d. 

Ark.  227.  Barrett,  22  S.  Car.  412 ;  Cole  County  v. 

'In  re  Hunter's  Estate   (Towa),  51  Dallmeyer,  101  Mo.57,  S.  C.13S.  W.  R. 

N.  W.  R.  20;    United  States  v.  Hood  687;  Johnson  r.  Pittsburgh,  etc., Co. ,47 

(D.   C),  19  Wash.   L.  R.  21;  Munze-  Ohio  St.  318,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  493; 

sheimer  r.  Fairbanks,  82  Texas,  351,  S.  State  r.  Hawkins,  100  Mo.  666,  S.  C. 

C.  18  S.  W.  R.  697.  13  S.  W.  R.  830;  People  r.  Sullivan, 

♦  State  r.  Clark,  30  Towa,  168;  State  24  N.  Y.  St.  579;  Fannon  r.  Pluinnier, 

V.  Knight,  19  Iowa,  84;  Bass  v.  The  30Mo.  App.  25;  Jasper  r.  Schle&inger, 

State,  17  Fla.  685;  Jernigan  v.  State,  22  111.  App.  637;  Mapstrick  v.  Ramge, 

17  Fla.  690;  Barber  v.  State,  13  Fla.  9  Neb.  390;    Hansen  v.  Bergquist,  9 

675;  Williams  r.  Moseley,  2  Fla.  304;  Neb.  269;    Cozine  v.  Hatch,    17  Neb. 

Fraser  r.  AVilley,  2  Fla.  116;  Davis  v.  694;  State  v.  Tod.l,  72  Mo.  288;  Miller 

Fish,  1  G.  Greene,  406;    but  see  Mat-  r.  Wilson,  12  Harris  (Pa.),  114;  Neal 

ter  of  Hunter's  Estate  (Iowa),  51  N.  r.  Shinn.  49  Ark.  227,  S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R. 

W.    R.   20.     See,   generally,    State  r.  771 ;    Wayne  Pike   Co.    r.  Hammons, 

Euzebe,  42  La.  Ann.  727,S.C.7  S.R.784 ;  129  Ind.  368 ;  Pitman  v.  United  States, 

State  v.Harkins,  100  Mo.  666,  S.  C.13  S.  45  Fed.  R.  159. 
W.  R.  830;  State  v.  Boardman,  64  Me. 


154  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  173 

them  by  positive  law.     The  adjournment  can  not,  of  course, 
be  effective  where  it  is  prohibited  by  statute.^ 

§  173.  Unauthorized  adjournment. — An  adjournment  at  a 
time  or  for  a  period  forbidden  by  law,  renders  the  proceedings 
erroneous  in  cases  where  there  is  a  direct  attack  and  an  objec- 
tion is  properly  interposed  and  saved.  This  much  is  clear,  for 
to  this  extent  the  authorities  are  harmonious.  But  when  we 
get  beyond  this  point  there  is  conflict  and  confusion.  Some 
of  the  courts  hold  that  where  there  is  an  unauthorized  adjourn- 
ment, jurisdiction  is  lost  and  subsequent  proceedings  void.^ 
Other  cases  take  a  different  view  of  the  question.-^  Irregular 
adjournments  are,  in  any  view  of  the  subject,  to  be  discriminated 
from  those  that  are  entirely  unauthorized,  and  it  seems  to  us, 
that  some  of  the  courts  have  fallen  into  error  because  of  the 
failure  to  make  the  proper  discrimination.  Where  there  is  an 
error  or  mere  irregularity,  the  proceedings  ought  not,  as  we 
believe,  to  be  held  ineffective  upon  a  collateral  nor  upon  a 
direct  attack,  unless  the  error  or  irregularity  is  an  influential 
one,  materially  prejudicing  the  rights  of  the  complaining  party. 
If  the  adjournment  is  unauthorized  in  the  strict  sense,  that  is, 
in  the  sense  of  being  prohibited,  there  is  room  for  debate  as  to 

^  Ex  parte  Juneman,  28  Texas  App.  25  Me.  423;  State  v.  Castle,  44  Wis. 

486,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  783 ;  Grimmett  v.  670,  675 ;   Boiler  v.  Mayer,  8  Jones  & 

Askew,  48  Ark.  151 ;  State  V.  Williams,  Spen.    (N.    Y.)     523,    527;    Peck    v. 

48  Ark.  227,  S.  C.  2  S.  W.  R.  843.  Andrews,  32  Barb.  445;  Grace  v.  Mit- 

"^  Ruhland  v.  Supervisors,   55  Wis.  criell,  31  Wis.  533. 
664,  S.  C.  13  N.  W.  R.  877;  Ruhland        Mennerson  v.  Garvin,  7  Kan.  136, 

V.  Jones,  55  Wis.  673,  S.  C.  13  N.  W.  139;  Leach  v.  Pillslmry,  18  N.  H.  525; 

R.  689;  White  v.  Mandeville,  72  Ga.  Hard  v.  Shipnian,  6  Barb.  621  ;  Hawes 

705,    707.     See,    however,    Taylor    v.  -y.  Hathaway,  14  Mass.  233;  Anderson 

Wilkinson,  22  Wis.  40;    Lininger  v.  v.  Gray,  134  111.  550,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R. 

Glenn,  33  Neb.  187,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  843;  Rigney  v.  Coles,  6  Bosw.  (N.  Y. 

1128;  GouldiJ.  Loughran,  lONeb.  392,  Super.)  479;  Smith  ?;.  Whittier,  9  N. 

S.  C.  27  N.  W.  R.   397;  Crandall   v.  H.   464,   466;    Barnes    v.    Badger,   41 

Bacon,  20  Wis.  671,  S.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  Barb.  98;    Central  Iowa,  etc.,  Co.  v 

451;   Grace  v.  Mitchell,  31  Wis.  533,  Piersol,  65  Iowa,  498,  S.  C.  22  N.  W. 

536;    Stromberg  v.   Esterly,  62  Wis.  R.  648;  /«  re  Edwards,  35  Kan.  99,  S. 

632,  S.  C.  22  N.  W.  R.  864;    Manufac-  C.  10  Pac.  R.  5.39;  Ex  parte  McGehan, 

turing  Co.  v.  Donahoe,  49  Ark.  318,  S.  22  Ohio  St.  442;    McGuire  v.  Wallace, 

C.  5  S.  W.  R.  342;  Fales  v.  Goodhue,  109  Ind.  284,  S.  C.  10  N.  E.  R.  111. 


§  174  COURTS.  155 

whether  it  is  or  is  not  void,  and  if  void,  whether  consent  can 
conchide  the  parties. 

§  174.  The  interim  created  by  adjournments  in  term — Va- 
cation.— In  some  oi'  the  dceuU'd  cases  the  iiitcrini  between  the 
day  an  adjourn  incut  is  ordered  and  the  day  to  wliicli  tiie  ad- 
journment is  made  is  regarded  as  a  vacation.'  This  doctrine 
is  one  of  importance,  since  the  general  rule  is  that  what  is  done 
by  the  court  as  a  court  must  be  done  in  term.^  It  is  true  that 
some  judicial  acts  may  be  performed  Ijy  a  judge  in  vacation, 
but  in  strictness  the  acts  of  the  court  must  be  performed  dur- 
ing term,  and  not  in  vacation.  Where  the  statute  expressly 
provides  that  judgments  may  be  rendered  in  vacation  by  con- 
sent, judgments  so  rendered  are  held  to  be  valid  and  effective.-^ 
Some  of  the  cases  discriminate  between  ministerial  and  judicial 
acts,  and  adjudge  that  ministerial  acts  may  be  effectively  per- 
formed in  vacation,  but  that  strictly  judicial  acts  can  only  be 
effective  in  term  time.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  discover  any 
solid  foundation  for  the  distinction  the  cases  make,  for  if  the 
act  is  really  the  act  of  the  court  it  is  necessarily  judicial,  and, 
if  judicial,  must  be  done  in  term.     We  do  not,  of  course,  im- 

•Conkling  v.  Ridgely,  112  111.  36;  Earls  r.  Earls,  27  Kan.  538;    King  w. 

First  National    Bank  ;'.  Daly,  34  111.  Green,  2  Stew.  133,  S.  C.  19  Am.  Dec. 

App.  173.  46 ;  Davis  v.  Fish,  1 G.  Greene  (Iowa), 

^  Robinson  v.  Ferguson,  78  111.  538,  406,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  387 ;    Filley  v. 

541;  Campbell  v.  Chandler,   37  Tex.  Cody,  4  Col.  109;    Francis  r.  Wells,  4 

32;    Ex  parte   Ireland,   38  Tex.   344;  Col.  274;    Bruce  v.  Doolittle,  81  111. 

Wicks  r.  Ludwig,  9  Cal.  173;  Norwood  103;    Laughlin  v.  Peckham,  66  Iowa, 

V.  Kenfield,  34  Cal.  329 ;  Domingues  i-.  121 ;  ISIarshall  r.  Ravisies,  22  Fla.  583 ; 

Doiningues,  4  Cal.  186;    McDowell  v.  Wight  v.  Wallbaum,  39  111.  554 ;  Bates 

Jones,   58    Ala.    25,   35;    Withers  v.  r.  Gage,  40  Cal.  183;    Gregg  r.  Cooke, 

Fuller,  30  Gratt.  547 ;  State  r.  Roberts,  1  Peck. (Tenn.)  82 ;  Le  Grange  r. Ward, 

8  Nev.  239 ;    Ex  parte  Roberts,  9  Nev.  11  (^liio,  257  ;  Ilerndon  r.  Hawkins,  65 

44 ;  Haws  v.  Clark,  37  Iowa,  355 ;  State  INIo.  265. 

National  Bank  r.  Neel,  53  Ark.  110,  S.  "  Roy  r.  Horsley,  6  Ore.  382,  S.  C.  25 

C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  185 ;  Garlick  v.  Dunn,  Am.  R.  537 ;    Hervey  i'.  Edmunds,  68 

42    Ala.    404.      See,  generally,    Kin-  N.  Car.   243;     Morrison  r.   Citizens' 

ports  V.  Rawson,  29  W.  Va.  487  ;  Gal-  Bank,  27  La.  Ann.  401 ;  Ex  parte  Ben- 

usha  r.  Butterlield,  2  Scam.  227 ;  Her-  nett,  44  Cal.  84.     See,  generally.  Peo- 

nandez  r.  James,   23    La.  Ann.  483;  pie  r.  O'Neil,  47  Cal.  109;    Phelan  r. 

Dixon  V.  Judge,  etc.,  26  La.  Ann.  119;  Ganebin,  5  Col.  14. 


156  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  175 

piign  the  soundness  of  the  doctrine  that  ministerial  acts  of 
ministerial  ofhcers  ma}'  be  performed  in  vacation  as  well  as  in 
term,  but  we  can  not  yield  assent  to  the  assumption  that  the 
act  of  a  court  is  ministerial.  It  seems  to  us  that  when  the  tri- 
bunal takes  action,  and  takes  it  as  a  court,  it  can  not  be  said  to 
act  ministerially.  The  courts  which  proceed  upon  the  theory 
tliat  some  of  the  acts  of  a  court  may  be  ministerial,  hold  that 
while  a  judgment  can  not  be  given  or  a  decision  made  in  vaca- 
tion, the  judgment  may  be  entered  in  vacation.^  If  the  doc- 
trine is  confined  to  the  mere  act  of  the  clerk  in  recording  or 
entering  the  judgment,  no  fault  can  justly  be  found  with  it; 
but  when  it  is  extended  so  far  as  to  embrace  the  action  of  the 
court,  it  merits  criticism.  It  has  been  held  that  a  judgment 
given  in  term  is  void  if  entered  in  vacation  without  having  been 
inspected  by  the  judge. ^ 

§  175.  Coiitiiiuoiis  session. — As  we  have  shown  in  a  former 
paragraph,  the  common  law  regarded  a  term  of  court  as  one 
day — the  first  day  of  the  term — and  wliile  that  doctrine  does 
not  prevail  as  fully  as  it  did  in  the  past,  yet  its  influence  is  still 
felt.  Under  the  influence  of  the  rule  mentioned  the  courts  still 
regard  a  term  as  continuous  although  it  may  be  broken  by 
adjournment  from  time  to  time,  and  a  long  interval  elapse  be- 
tween the  time  the  order  of  adjournment  is  made  and  the  con- 
vening of  the  court  pursuant  to  the  order  of  adjournment. 
When  the  term  is  regularly  opened  it  continues  until  adjourned, 
by  operation  of  law  or  the  order  of  the  judge  or  judges.^  Where 
there  is  an  adjourning  order  a  vacation  may  exist,  but  upon  the 
convening  of  the  session  pursuant  to  the  order,  the  term  is 
open,  and  rulings  or  judgments  made  or  given  maybe  modified 
or  changed  as  if  there  had  been  no  interim  caused  by  the  ad- 
journment.* 

1  Iliff  V.  Arnott,  31  Kan.  672;  Sieber  See  Wilson  v.  Rodewald,  61  Miss.  228. 

V.  Frink,  7  Col.  148;  Earls  v.  Earls,  27  ^pg^pje  ^.    Central    City  Bank,  53 

Kan.  538;    Manitowoc  County  u.  Sal-  Barb.  412;    Jasper  i;.  Schlesinger,  22 

livan,  51  Wis.  115.  111.  App.  637. 

«  Mitchell  V.  St.  John,  98  Ind.  598.  <  Eastman  v.  Concord,  64  N.  H.  263. 


§  176  COURTS.  157 

§  170.  Special  terms — Generally. — A  special  term  is  usually 
one  appointed  by  tlie  court.  It  is  ordinarily  necessary  to 
give  notice  of  such  terms,  but  where  there  is  general  authority 
to  liold  special  terms  and  the  court  assumes  to  lioM  one,  the 
presumption  is  that  the  proper  order  was  made  and  the  notice 
given  as  the  law  requires.  To  hold  otherwise  would  Ijc  to 
violate  the  presumption  tliat  judges  obey  the  law,  and  it  would, 
indeed,  be  a  gross  and  indefensible  violation  of  the  rule  that  all 
ofhcial  acts  are  presumed  to  be  rightfully  performed .  To  so  hold 
would  be  to  assume  that  the  members  of  the  court  had  usurped 
authority  and  disregarded  the  law  they  were  appointed  or 
elected  to  uphold  and  enforce.  This  would  be  a  wide  and  un- 
justifiable departure  from  principle,  far  more  so  than  to  ad- 
judge that  ministerial  officers  had  violated  the  law  where  no 
facts  are  established  which  affirmatively  show  a  breach  of  duty. 
This  we  say  for  the  reason  that  judicial  officers  are  required  to 
act  with  calm  deliberation,  to  give  heed  to  the  law  with 
scrupulous  care  and  obey  it  in  every  particular.  Where  a  no- 
tice or  an  order  is  essential  to  the  regularity  or  validity  of  a 
special  term,  and  a  special  term  is  held,  the  presumption  is  that 
the  precedent  acts  were  duly  performed.  The  principle  we 
have  outlined  is  elementary  and  familiar.^  If  there  is  an  ab- 
solute absence  of  power  to  hold  special  sessions  the  rule  we 
have  stated  does  not  govern,  for  the  reason  that  in  such  a  case 
the  question  is  one  of  power,  and  wdiere  there  is  no  power  there 
can,  it  is  clear  enough,  be  no  valid  action  by  any  tribunal  no 

'  In  the  case  of  Bank  v.  Dandridge,  the  acts  of  natural  persons.  Each  af- 
12  AVheat.  64,  70,  the  court  said :  "The  fords  presumptions,  from  acts  done,  of 
same  presumptions  are,  we  think,  ap-  what  must  have  preceded  them,  as 
plicable  to  corporations.  Persons  act-  matters  of  right  or  matters  of  duty." 
ing  publicly  as  officers  of  the  corpora-  The  same  general  doctrine  was  assert- 
tion  are  to  be  presumed  rightfully  in  edin  the  case  of  Knox  County  v.  Ninth 
office.  Acts  done  by  the  corporation  National  Bank,  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  207, 
which  presuppose  the  existence  of  where  it  was  said:  "It  is  a  rule  of 
other  acts  to  make  them  legally  opera-  very  general  application  that,  where 
live  are  presumptive  proofs  of  the  lat-  an  act  is  done  which  can  be  done 
ter."  In  another  place  in  the  same  legally  only  after  the  performance  of 
opinion  it  was  said:  "In  short,  we  some  prior  act,  proof  of  the  latter  car- 
think  that  the  acts  of  artificial  per-  ries  with  it  a  presumption  of  the  due 
sons  afford  the  same  presumptions  as  performance  of  the  prior  act." 


158  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  176 

matter  how  great  its  dignity  or  high  its  rank.  We  can  not  es- 
cape the  conckision  that  some  of  the  courts  have  swung  com- 
pletely away  from  principle  in  holding,  that,  although  there  is 
general  authority  to  hold  special  sessions  or  terms,  the  proceed- 
ings are  void  unless  the  record  affirmatively  shows  that  all  was 
done  that  the  law  requires.  So  far  are  we  from  assenting  to 
this  doctrine  that  we  assert  that  the  sound  rule  is  that  where 
the  record  is  silent  the  presumption  is  that  the  term  or  session 
was  in  all  things  regular  and  legal.  We  are,  indeed,  inclined 
to  believe  that  the  session  or  term  is  to  be  regarded  as  having 
been  duly  held  unless  the  record  affirmatively  shows  the  de- 
fects which  destroy  its  regularity.  This  conclusion  is  in  close 
agreement  with  the  general  doctrine  that  a  collateral  attack  can 
not  prevail  against  a  judgment  unless  the  matter  which  makes 
the  judgment  void  appears  upon  the  face  of  the  record,  and,  as 
we  have  elsewhere  shown,  with  the  far-reaching  general  rule 
that  all  presumptions  and  intendments  will  be  made  in  favor 
of  the  proceedings  of  judicial  tribunals,  unless  matters  appear 
of  record  checking  or  breaking  down  the  presumption  that  the 
acts  of  public  officers  are  presumed  to  be  rightfully  done  until 
the  contrary  is  made  to  appear.  ^ 

1  As  illustrating  and  supporting  the  38  N.  H.  314,  317;  Baizer  v.  Lusch,  28 

statements  of  the  text,  we  cite  cases  Wis.  268,  272 ;  State  v.  Conoly,  6  Ired. 

where   presumptions  have  been  em-  243 ;  Galbraith  v.  Littiech,  73  111.  209 ; 

ployed  to  support  the   decisions  and  Beebe  v.  Scheldt,   13   Ohio    St.   406; 

rulings  of  what  are  commonly  called  McClelland  v.  Miller,  28  Ohio  St.  488, 

inferior  courts.    Fox  v.  Hoyt,  12  Conn.  600;  Jacobs  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

491,  495,  S.  C.  31  Am.  Dec.  700;  Greg-  Bush.  263,  269;  Williams  v.  Morgan,  1 

cry  V.   Bovier,   77  Cal.  121;  Fagg  v.  Litt.  (Ky.)  167.    We  do  not,  of  course, 

Clements,  16  Cal.  389 ;  Jolley  v.  Foltz,  refer  to  the  cases  cited  as  directly  de- 

34  Cal.  321 ;  Liss  v.  Wilcoxen,  2  Colo,  daring  the  doctrine  of  the  text,  but 

So;  Behymer  T.  Noidloh,  12  Colo.  352;  as  showing  the  influence  and  power 

Williams  v.  Cammack,  27  Miss.  209,  of  the  general  presumption.     It  is,  as 

S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  508;  Hendricks  v.  we  believe,  inconsistent  and  illogical 

Whitteraore,  105  Mass.  28;  Barber  v.  to  attempt  to  divide  a  general   rule, 

Kennedy,   18  Minn.   216;  Billings  v.  apply  it  to  one  class  and  deny  it  to 

Russell,  23  Pa.  St.  191,  S.  0.  62  Am.  another  where  the  classes  are  in  es- 

Dec.  330;  Kincaid  ij.Neall,  3  McCord,  sence  the  same.    If  apresumption  will 

201 ;  Camp  v.  Woods,  10  Watts.  (Pa.)  support  one  ruling  or  one  decision,  it 

118;  Farrw.  Ladd,37  Vt.  156;  Lightsey  ought,   in  reason,  to  be  held  to  sup- 

V.  Harris,  20  Ala.  409,  State  v.  AVeare,  port  all  rulings  and  decisions  wherever 


§  177  COURTS.       •  159 

§  177.  Special  torms — Aiitliority  to  order. — It  is  evident 
that  where  the  statute  clearly  and  expressly  prescribes  the  time 
for  holdinf]^  court,  and,  either  by  express  words  or  necessary 
iniplicaiion,  cxchidcs  authority  to  apj)oint  special  terms,  none 
can  be  lidd.  As  indicated  in  the  precedin;,^  paragraph  and 
elsewhere,  there  is  a  plain  and  radical  difference  between  cases 
where  there  is  authority  to  liold  special  sessions,  and  the  ques- 
tion is  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  authority  is  exercised,  and 
cases  in  which  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  authority.  Where 
there  is  general  authority  to  appoint  special  sessions  the  appel- 
late courts  generally  go  to  great  length  in  upholding  such  ses- 
sions, and  will  not  hold  them  ineffective  although  some  errors 
or  irregularities  may  be  shown.  The  rules  sanctioned  by  most 
of  the  courts  are  liberal  in  favor  of  the  parties  insisting  upon 
the  validity  of  proceedings  at  such  sessions  and  strict  as  against 
those  who  assail  the  proceedings.  Where,  as  is  generally  the 
case,  the  question  of  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  appointing 
special  terms  is  committed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court,  its 
judgment  will  not  be  disturbed  unless  there  is  a  flagrant  and 
prejudicial  abuse  of  discretion.^ 

§  178.  Special  terms — Constitutional  questions. — In  some 
of  the  cases  it  has  been  contended  that  judges  can  not  be  em- 
powered to  order  special  terms  to  be  held.  The  ground  upon 
which  this  contention  was  rested  was  that  giving  the  judges 
such  authority  was  a  delegation  of  legislative  power.    The  court, 

there  exists  general  authority  to  make  56;  Oshoga  v.  State,  3  Chand.  ("Wis.) 
such  rulings  or  decisions.  In  the  57;  Schrier  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co., 
case  of  Hanesr.  Worthington,  14  Ind.  65  Wis.  457;  Casily  t?.  State,  32  Ind. 
320,  it  was  said :  "The  contrary  not  62.  In  Harper  v.  State,  42  Ind.  405, 
appearing,  we  will  presume  that  the  410,  the  court  declared  that  the  de- 
court  was  regularly  held  and  the  cause  cision  in  Casily  v.  State,  nupra,  in  ef- 
properiy  brought  to  trial."  Tlie  same  feet  overruled  the  cases  of  Shiel  r. 
doctrine  was  declared  in  Shirts  v.  Maffett,  17  Ind.  316,  and  Slaughter  r. 
Irons,  28  Ind.  458,  460.  Asserting  a  Gregory,  16  Ind.  250.  See  Comnion- 
similiar  doctrine  are  the  cases  of  wealth  v.  Graves,  18  B.  Monr.  (Ky.) 
Kenney  v.  Phillipy,  91  Ind.  511;  34;  Scheland  r.  Erpelding,  6  Oregon, 
Zonker  v.  Cowan,  84  Ind.  395;  Wood  258;  State  r.  Judge,  etc.,  11  La.  Ann. 
V.  Franklin,  97  Ind.  117,  120.  66;  Ilanna  v.  Phelps,  7  Ind.  21. 
^  Oshoga  v.  State,  3  Pinney  (Wis.), 


160  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  5  1  78 

however,  denied  the  validity  of  the  contention  and  hekl  that  there 
was  no  delegation  of  legislative  authority.^  In  this  the  court 
was  clearly  right.  Judicial  power  embraces  much  more  than 
the  authority  to  give  judgments  or  render  decisions.^  It  em- 
braces all  acts  relating  to  matters  of  procedure  and  connected 
with  the  administration  of  justice  where  such  matters  are  not 
ministerial  or  executive  in  their  character.  Courts  could  not 
effectively  discharge  their  duties  if  their  authority  were  rigidly 
confined  to  the  conduct  of  trials,  the  hearing  of  causes  and  the 
rendition  of  judgments  or  decrees.  It  is  manifest  that  as  to 
the  matter  of  holding  adjourned  or  special  terms  it  is  legiti- 
mate and  appropriate  to  confer  upon  them  comprehensive  powers, 
since  the  determination  of  whether  such  terms  shall  or 
shall  not  be  held  is  intrinsically  a  judicial  question  and  the 
subject  in  its  general  scope  a  judicial  one.  Of  much  more 
doubtful  soundness  is  the  case  which  holds  that  the  governor 
of  the  State  may  appoint  special  terms  of  court. '"^  It  seems  to 
us  that  in  vesting  the  governor  with  that  authority  the  funda- 
mental principle,  which  our  national  and  State  constitutions 
sanction  and  confirm,  that  the  powers  of  the  government  shall 
be  kept  separate  and  distinct,  is  violated.  The  chief  executive 
officer  of  a  State,  in  assuming  to  fix  the  times  for  holding 
special  sessions  of  the  court  does,  necessarily,  determine  ques- 
tions of  a  purel}^  judicial  nature  and  does  in  a  great  measure 
take  upon  himself  to  determine  what  the  business  of  the  court 
requires.  This  he  can  not  do  without  controlling  the  affairs 
of  the  judicial  department,  and  this,  as  we  believe,  he  can  not 
be  empowered  to  do.  In  our  judgment  it  is  only  the  duly 
elected  or  appointed  judges  of  the  courts  who  can  determine 
when  the  business  will  require  a  special  term  or  when  a  special 
term  can  be  held  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  litigants 
having  business  in  regular  terms.  We  believe  further  that  if 
it  be  conceded  that  the  power  is  not  a  judicial  one,  it  must  be 

'Messenger  v.    Broom,     1    Pinney     07;  Striker  v.    Kelly,   2   Denio,   323; 
(Wis.),  630.  State  v.  Noble,  118  Tnd.  350,  359. 

» In  the  matter  of  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.        » State  v.  Ketchey,  70  N.  Car.  621. 


§  179  COURTS.  101 

regarded  as  legislative,  and  if  legislative  that  it  can  not  be  del- 
egated . 

§  179.  Business  of  special  terms. — In  jurisdictions  where 
the  law  makes  provision  tor  the  business  that  shall  be  trans- 
acted at  a  special  term  and  leaves  the  court  no  discretion  the 
<jourt  can  transact  such  business  only  as  the  statute  prescribes. 
Thus  when  a  statute  provides  that  a  motion  shall  be  made  at 
a  regular  term  it  can  not  be  made  at  a  special  term.^  We  sup- 
pose, however,  that  if  the  parties  expressly  or  impliedly  agree 
that  the  motion  may  be  made  at  a  special  term  they  would 
not  be  permitted  to  subsequently  aver  that  it  was  made  at  the 
wrong  term.  Where  the  statute  does  not  restrict  the  court  nor 
prescribe  what  business  shall  be  transacted,  the  term  is  to  be 
regarded  as  open  to  all  pending  business. ^  It  has  been  held 
that  a  special  term  is  not  part  of  the  regular  term,'^  and  that 
actions  may  be  brought  at  such  terms, ^  but  these  matters 
are  largely  matters  of  statutory  regulation.  The  order  may 
control  the  business  where  the  court  has  authority  to  direct 
what  business  shall  be  transacted.^ 

§  180.   Adjournment — Reasons  for  need  not  be  assigned. — 

It  is  always  presumed  in  the  absence  of  countervailing  facts 
that  a  court  acting  within  the  general  sphere  of  its  authority 
has  proceeded  legally  and  regularly,  and  upon  this  comprehen- 
sive principle  rests  the  doctrine  that  a  court  in  ordering  an  ad- 
journment, or  in  ordering  a  special  or  adjourned  term,  is  not 
required  to  assign  reasons  for  its  action.^     It  is  reasonable  to 

'  Garner  V.  Carroll,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  51;  Friar  i-.  State,  3  How. (Miss.)  422; 

365;  Staggv.State,3  Humph.  (Tenn.)  Sharp  v.  Pike,  5  B.  Monr.  (Ky.),  155; 

372.  Mattingly  v.  Darwin,  23  111.  56;  Le- 

»Hall  i\  State,   3  Lea  (Tenn.)  552;  win  c   Dille,  17  Mo.   64;    Reams   v. 

Hall  V.  Mount,  3  Cold.  (Tenn.)  395.  Kearns,  5  Cold.  (Tenn.)   217  ;  Wise  v. 

'  Garner  t\  Carroll,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.),  State,  34  Ga,  348;  lluwson  v.  Powell, 

365.  36  Ga.  255- 

*  Knight  V.  Bamberger,  19  Ind.  91.  «  Casily  v.  State,  32  Ind.  62 ;  Harper 

*  Brown  v.  Newby,  6  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  v.  State,  42  Ind.  405;  Shiel  v.  Maffett, 
395.  See,  generally,  Buck  r.  Beekly,  17  Ind.  316;  Cass  i-.  Krimbill,  39  Ind. 
45  111.  100;  Murphy  r.  Barlow,  ',  Ind.  357. 

230;  O'Kellv    •.  Territory,  1   Oregon, 
"11 


162  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  181 

assume  that  the  court  had  sufficient  reason  for  its  action.  The 
absurdity  of  any  other  rule  is  manifest.  It  is,  of  course,  nec- 
essary to  assign  reasons  where  a  positive  statute  so  commands, 
but  where  there  is  no  sucli  command  it  need  not  be  done  al- 
though the  statute  declares  what  reasons  shall  be  sufficient  to 
warrant  an  adjournment  from  time  to  time  in  term,  or  to  war- 
rant the  holding  of  special  or  adjourned  terms.  Where  the  stat- 
ute provides  what  reasons  will  justify  the  holding  of  special 
or  adjourned  terms  it  is  presumed  that  such  reasons  existed. 

§181.  Adjourned  and  special  terms — Discretionary  power 
to  order. — Where  a  court  of  original  jurisdiction  is  invested 
with  discretionary  power  to  order  the  holding  of  special  or  ad- 
journed terms  its  exercise  of  that  power  is  not  subject  to  re- 
view. It  would  require  clear  and  strong  words  to  make  a 
power  to  order  special  or  adjourned  terms  any  other  than  one 
of  discretion.  In  the  nature  of  things  the  court  of  original  ju- 
risdiction must  be  clothed  with  ample  discretion  in  such  mat- 
ters, and,  presumptively,  at  least,  the  legislature  must  betaken 
to  have  intended  to  commit  to  them  a  wide  and  comprehensive 
discretion.  The  exercise  of  a  purely  discretionary  power  is  not 
error  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term,  although  it  may  not  have 
been  wisely  or  prudently  exercised.^  An  abuse  of  discretion, 
when  clearly  shown,  may  constitute  material  error,  but  ap- 
pellate tribunals  are  reluctant  to  overthrow  the  judgments  of 
nisi  prius  courts  upon  that  ground.  It  is  a  doctrine  running 
through  all  the  law,  applicable  to  ministerial  as  well  as  to  ju- 
dicial officers,  that  where  a  discretion  is  committed  to  a  tribu- 

'  Lawrence  v.  Farley,  73  N.  Y.  187 ;  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  925 ;  Sinclair  ??.  Hol- 

Howell  v.  Mills,  53N.  Y.  322;  Martin  lister,   16  N.  Y.    S.  529;  Schmohl   v. 

V.  Windsor  Hotel  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  101;  Fusco,  16  N.  Y.  S.  862;  Matheson  v. 

Johnson  r.  Swayze  (Neb.),  52  N.  W.  Grant,  2  How.  (U.  S.)  263,  279;  Ma- 

R.  835;  Minnoch  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  Co.  rine  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hodgson,  6  Cranch. 

(Mich.),  51  N.   W.  R.  367;  Lake  v.  206;  Mellish  v.  Richardson,  7  B.  &  C. 

Sweet,63Hun,636,S.C.18N.Y.S.342;  819;  Ex  parte  Strong,   20  Pick.  484; 

Adaras?;.Main,3Ind.App.232,S.C.29  Carpenter  v.   Bristol,   21    Pick.  258; 

N.  E.  R. 792;  Gordons.  Reynolds,  114  Powell's  Appellate  Proceedings,  195; 

111.  118,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  455;  People  Elliott's  Appellate  Procedure,  §§  597, 

V.  AVayne  Circuit  Judge,  41  Mich.  727,  598,  599,  600. 


§  182  COURTS.  163 

nal,  no  matter  what  its  rank,  no  other  tribunal  will  assume  to 
exercise  it.^  To  so  do  would,  it  is  evident,  be  a  flagrant  usurpa- 
tion. 

§  182.  Terms  of  coiirt^ — Judicial  notice. — As  the  times  for 
holding  terms  of  court  are  prescribed  by  law,  it  is  no  more  than 
yielding  obedience  to  familiar  and  elementary  principles  to  ad- 
judge that  judicial  notice  of  the  times  fixed  by  law  will  be  taken 
by  other  courts  of  the  same  jurisdiction. ^  The  principle  re- 
ferred to  requires  it  to  be  held,  as  it  is,  that  notice  will  be  taken 
ex  officio  of  the  beginning  and  duration  of  terms. -^  It  is  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  principles  stated  that  it  will  be  deter- 
mined byjudicial  notice  whether  the  acts  of  the  court  have  or  have 
not  been  rightfully  done  during  term.  The  rules  we  have  stated 
can  readily  and  easily  be  applied  to  regular  terms  of  court,  but 
they  can  not  be  applied,  without  qualification,  to  special  terms, 
or  adjourned  terms,  held  pursuant  to  special  orders  or  notices. 
We  suppose  it  to  be  clear  that  courts  do  not  ex  officio  take  no- 
tice of  special  orders  or  notices  of  other  tribunals  although 
they  will,  of  course,  take  judicial  notice  of  their  authority  to 
make  such  orders  or  issue  such  notices.  When  it  is  ascertained 
that  authority  exists  to  make  such  orders  or  issue  such  notices, 
and  convene  adjourned  or  special  terms,  it  will  be  presumed, 
the  contrary  not  appearing,  that  the  adjourned  or  special  term 
was  held  according  to  law."*     The  general  principle  underlying 

1  Goszler  v.  Georgetown,   6  Wheat.  Gregg,  19  Ind.  401 ;  Williams  v.  Hub- 

593;  State  v.  City  of  Newark,  48  N.  J.  bard,  1  Mich.  446;  McGinnis  r.  State, 

Law,   101;   Weaver  v.  Templin,   113  24  Ind.  500;  McCrory  v.  Anderson,  103 

Ind.  298;  City  of  Richmond  r.  Davis,  Ind.  12;  Carmody  v.  State,   105  Ind. 

103  Ind.  440;  Smith  r.  Corporation  of  546;  Clapp  v.  Bowman,  22  Neb.  198, 

Washington,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  135 ;  Da-  S.  C.  34  N.  AV.  R.  162. 
vis  r.  Mayor,  1  Duer,  451 ;  2  Dillon's        ^  Rodman  r.  Rodman,  54   Ind.  444; 

Munic.  Corp.    (3d.  ed.),  686;  Elliott  McGinnis  r.  State,  24  Ind.  500;    Car- 

on  Roads  and  Streets,  pp.  276, 297,  375,  lisle  r.  Gaar,  18  Ind.  177 ;    Bethune  v. 

664.  Hale,  45  Ala.  522 ;    Rodgers  r.  State, 

"Lindsay  v.  Williams,  17  Ala.  229;  50  Ala.  102;  Simms  r.  Todd,  72  Mo. 
Stater.  Hammett,  7  Ark.  492;  Morgan  288;  Spencer  r.  Curtis,  57  Ind.  221; 
V.  State,  12  Ind.  448 ;  Gilliland  v.  Ellsworth  r.  Moore,  5  Iowa,  486. 
Sellers,  2  Ohio  St.  223;  Dornuin  v.  *  Carlisle  r.  Gaar,  18  Ind.  177;  Porter 
State,  56  Ind.  454;  Pugh  v.  State,  2  r.  State,  2  Ind.  435.  We  have  else- 
Head.  (Tenn.)227;  Buckinghouse  r.  where  considered  the  subject  touched 


164 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§183 


the  doctrine  we  have  stated  goes  so  far  as  to  make  it  the  duty 
of  the  courts  to  take  judicial  notice  of  the  judges  and  general 
officers  of  courts  of  the  same  State,  and  of  their  ordinary- 
duties.^  We  are  speaking  of  what  one  court  will  take  judicial 
notice  of  concerning  the  action  of  another  and  different  court, 
and  not  of  what  a  court  will  notice  ex  officio  in  its  own  records.^ 

§  183.  Judgment  of  the  court  as  to  the  regularity  of  its 
session — Eft'ect  of. — Where  a  court  having  a  general  authority 
to  hold  a  session  upon  its  own  order,  or  upon  notice,  does  hold 
a  session,  thus  impliedly  adjudging  that  it  has  the  right  and 
authority  to  hold  such  a  session,  its  judgment  upon  the  ques- 
tion should  be  regarded  as  conclusive  against  a  collateral  at- 
tack.'"*  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  decisions  in  closely 
analogous  cases,  and  is  in  accordance  with  principle.*  There 
is,  it  is  evident,  a  marked  difference  between  cases  where  there 
is  no  general  authority  to  hold  sessions  at  other  times  than 
those  fixed,  definitely  and  certainly,  by  positive  law,  and  cases 


upon  in  the  closing  sentence  of  the 
text. 

'  Grusenmeyer  v.  City  of  Logansport, 
76  Ind.  549;  La  Planter.  Lee,  83  Ind. 
155. 

« People  V.  Bloedel,  16  N.  Y.  Supp. 
837;  Campbell  v.  West,  86  Cal.  197,  S. 
C.  24  Pac.  R.  1000;  White  v.  Rankin, 
90  Ala.  541,  S.  C.  8  S.  R.  118 ;  Hancock 
V.  Worcester,  62  Vt.  106,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R. 
1041 ;  In  re  Gorry,  48  Hun,  29,  S.  C.  15 
N.Y.St.  R.315;  Walcottu.Wells(Nev.), 
9  Law.  Rep.  Anno.  59,  S.  C.  24  Pac.  R. 
367 ;  States.  Barrett,  40  Minn.  65,  S.  C. 
41  N.  W.  R.  459 ;  United  States  v.  Leh- 
man, 39  Fed.  R.  49;  State  v.  Wright, 
16  R.  I.  518,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  998;  Up- 
ton V.  Paxton,  72  Iowa,  295,  S.  C.  33 
N.  W.  R.  773 ;  Cannon  v.  Cannon,  66 
Texas,  682;  Buell  v.  State,  72  Ind. 
523 ;  Hipes  v.  State,  73  Ind.  39. 

3  Van  Fleet  Collateral  Attack,  §  1. 
The  principle  we  assert  was  thus  stated 
in   Bouldin    v.   Ewart,   63    Mo.   330: 


"The  very  fact  of  holding  a  court 
there  necessarily  implied  an  assertion 
of  the  right  to  hold  it.  It  was  a  de 
facto  court,  and  its  proceedings  were 
not  void  even  if  it  should  be  conceded 
that  its  session  was  at  a  place  unau- 
thorized by  law."  The  general  doc- 
trine was  applied  to  a  case  where  a 
justice  tried  a  cause  in  a  township 
where  he  had  no  jurisdiction.  Rogers 
V.  Loop,  51  Iowa,  41.  Many  other 
cases  assert  a  similar  doctrine.  King 
V.  Inhabitants,  4  T.  R.  596 ;  Jones  v. 
The  Church,  etc.,  15  Neb.  81. 

*See,  generally,  Venable??. White,  2 
Head.  (Tenn.)582;  Henslieu.  State,  3 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  202;  Cheek  u.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  etc.,  9  Heisk.  489 ;  Smurr 
V.  State,  105  Ind.  125,  131 ;  Brewer  v. 
State,  6  Lea,  198,  203;  Walcott  v. 
Wells  (Nev.),  9  Law.  R.  Anno.  59; 
White  V.  Fleming,  114  Ind.  560;  An- 
derson V.  Claman,  123  Ind.  471. 


§183 


COURTS. 


165 


where  there  is  a  general  authority  to  hold  sessions  or  terms 
upon  notice,  or  upon  the  existence  of  designated  facts.  In  the 
one  case  there  is  a  question  for  the  judicial  consideration  and 
judgment,  in  the  other  there  is  none.  Where  there  is  a  ques- 
tion to  he  decided  and  a  decision  is  given  upon  it,  there  is  a 
judgment  upon  a  matter  in  its  nature  jurisdictional,  and  such 
a  decision  is,  according  to  principle  and  authority,  effective 
against  a  collateral  attack.  It  is  held  in  all  the  well  considered 
cases  that  where  a  court,  inferior  or  superior,  is  required  to 
ascertain  and  decide  that  facts  essential  to  jurisdiction  exist, 
its  decision  can  not  be  successfully  impeached  in  a  collateral 
proceeding.^  The  principle  which  these  cases  establish  is  the 
same  as  that  involved  in  the  question  we  are  considering,  and 
there  is  every  reason  why  it  should  be  held  to  control  it,  and 
no  valid  reason  why  its  application  to  such  a  question  should 
be  denied.  To  break  a  great  principle  into  fragments,  giving 
it  effect  in  some  cases  and  denying  it  in  others  where  the  cases 


'  Commissioners  of  Knox  County  v. 
Aspinwall,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  539 ;  Town 
of  Colona  v.  Eaves,  92  U.  S.  484; 
Moran  v.  Miami  County,  2  Black  (U. 
S.),  722;    Mercer  County  v.   Hacket, 


V.  Sims,  86  Ala.  102,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St. 
R.  21 ;  Wyatt  v.  Rambo,  29  Ala.  510, 
S.  C.  68  Am.  Dec.  89;  Ela  v.  Smith,  5 
Gray,  121,  S.  C.  66  Am.  Dec.  356; 
Bonsall  v.  Isett,  14  Iowa,  309 ;  Ryan  v. 


1  AVall.  83;  Supervisors  v.  Schenck,  5    Varga,  37  Iowa,  78;  Koehler  r.  Hill, 


Wall.  772;  Meyer  v.  Muscatine,  1 
Wall.  384;  Royal  British  Bank  v. 
Turquand,  6  Ell.  &  Bl.  327;  Evans- 
ville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Evansville, 
15  Ind.  395;  Tucker  v.  Sellers,  130 
Ind.  514  ;  Alexander  v.  Gill,  130  Ind. 
485,  30  N.  E.  R.  525, 527 ;  McEneney  v. 
Town  of  Sullivan,  125  Ind.  407,412; 
Montgomery  v.  Wasem,  116  Ind.  343, 
351  ;  Sims  v.  Gay,  109  Ind.  501,  505; 
Commissioners  r.  BoUes,  94  U.  S.  104; 
Henline  v.  People,  81  111.269;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Co.  V.  Chamberlain,  84  111. 
333 ;  Roderigas  v.  East  River,  etc.,  Co., 
63  N.  Y.  460,  S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  555; 
Miller  v.  Brinkerhoff,  4  Denio,  118; 
Staples  V.  Fairchild,  3  N.  Y.  41 ;  Peo- 
ple V.  Sturtevant,  9  N.  Y.  263 ;  Skin- 
nion  V.  Kelley,  18  N.  Y.  355;  Bum- 
stead  V.  Read,  31  Barb.  661 ;  Goodwin 


60  Iowa,  543;  Martin  v.  Mott,  12 
Wheat.  19:  Vanderheyden  tj.  Young, 
11  Johns.  150;  Wanzer  v.  Howland, 
10  Wis.  8;  Angell  v.  Robbins,  4  R.  I. 
493;  Agry  v.  Betts,  12  Me.  415;  Lowe 
V.  Dore,  32  Me.  27;  Waterhouse  r. 
Cousins,  40  ]Me.  333 ;  People  v.  Hagar, 
52  Cal.  171.  See,  generally,  Quayle  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Mo.  465;  Van 
Steenbergh  r.  Bigelow,  3  Wend.  42; 
Cauldwell  r.  Curry,  93  Ind.  363 ;  AVood 
V.  AVilson,  4  IIous.  (Dela.)  94;  Town 
of  Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N.  Y. 
161,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  369;  Ayres  r. 
Lawrence,  63  Barb.  454,  456 ;  Quinlan 
t'.  Myers,  29  Ohio  St.  500 ;  Collins  v. 
Bennett,  46  N.  Y.  490;  Hallock  v. 
Dominy,  69  N.  Y.  238;  Lange  r.  Ben- 
edict, 73  N.  Y.  12. 


166 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§183 


are  the  same  in  essence,  deforms  the  system  of  law,  produces 
confusion  and  leads  to  evil  results  in  more  ways  than  one. 
Uniformity  is  a  legal  virtue  and  diversity  a  legal  vice.  The 
foundation  principle  of  the  cases  to  which  we  have  referred  is 
this:  Where  there  is  a  general  authority  over  a  class  of  cases 
there  is  power  to  decide  whether  the  right  to  proceed  exists  in 
the  particular  case,^  and  to  decide  this,  it  must  also  be  decided 
that  the  tribunal  is  authorized  to  make  the  decision.  It  is 
necessarily  assumed  at  the  very  outset  that  the  court  is  in  a 
position  to  entertain  the  question  and  give  judgment  upon  it, 
since,  if  it  is  not  in  that  position  it  can  take  no  action  what- 

^  In  the  case  of  Roderigas  v.  The 
East  River,  etc.,  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  460,  S. 
C.  20  Am.  R.  555,  the  court  said : 
"When  a  statute  prescribes  that  some 
fact  must  exist  before  jurisdiction  can 
attach  in  any  court,  such  fact  must 
exist  before  there  can  be  jurisdiction, 
and  the  court  can  not  acquire  jurisdic- 
tion by  erroneously  deciding  that  it  ex- 
ists, and  that  it  has  jurisdiction.  But 
where  general  jurisdiction  is  given  to 
a  court  over  any  subject,  and  that  ju- 
risdiction depends  in  the  particular 
case,  upon  facts  which  must  be  brought 
before  the  court  for  its  determination 
upon  evidence,  and  when  it  is  re- 
quired to  act  upon  such  evidence,  its 
decision  upon  the  question  of  its  juris- 
diction is  conclusive  until  reversed, 
revoked  or  vacated."  The  same 
court  said  in  the  case  of  Porter  v. 
Purdy,  29  N.  Y.  106,  S.  C.  86  Am.  Dec. 
283:  "  When,  in  special  proceedings 
in  courts  or  before  officers  of  limited 
jurisdiction,  they  are  required  to  as- 
certain a  particular  fact,  or  to  appoint 
persons  to  act  in  such  proceedings, 
having  particular  qualifications  or  oc- 
cupying some  peculiar  relation  to  the 
parties  or  subject,  such  acts,  when 
done,  are  in  the  nature  of  adjudica- 
tions, which,  if  erroneous,  must  be 
corrected  by  a  direct  proceeding  for 
that  purj)ose ;  and  if  not  so  corrected, 


the  subsequent  proceedings  which 
rest  upon  them  are  not  affected,  how- 
ever erroneous  such  adjudications  may 
be."  In  a  recent  work  the  principle 
underlying  the  cases  to  which  we  have 
referred  is  carried  to  its  legitimate 
logical  results  and  a  just  application  of 
the  general  doctrine  correctly  made. 
In  the  work  to  which  we  refer,  it  is 
said:  "And  as  no  one  would  think 
of  holding  a  judgment  of  the  court  of 
last  resort  void  if  its  jurisdiction  were 
debatable  or  even  colorable,  the  same 
rule  must  be  applied  to  the  judgments 
of  all  judicial  tribunals.  This  is  the 
true  theory  of  judicial  action  when 
viewed  collaterally.  If  any  jurisdic- 
tional question  is  debatable  or  colora- 
ble, the  tribunal  must  decide  it ;  and 
an  erroneous  conclusion  can  only  be 
corrected  by  some  proceeding  pro- 
vided by  law  for  so  doing,  commonly 
called  a  direct  attack."  Van  Fleet 
Collateral  Attack,  §1,  p.  2.  This 
author  at  another  place,  speaking  of 
an  assumption  that  no  court  can  pass 
upon  its  own  organization,  says:  "But 
that  begs  the  question.  Each  court 
at  each  step  it  takes  has  to  decide  that 
it  still  has  a  lawful  organization  and 
the  lawful  right  to  proceed."  Ibid, 
§21,  p.  34.  See,  also,  §31,  and  authori- 
ties cited  in  note. 


§183 


COURTS. 


107 


ever.  The  initial  step  in  every  instance  is  the  decision  of  the 
right  to  entertain  the  particular  case,  and  decide  upon  facts  in 
their  nature  jurisdictional.  Whether  the  decision  is  expressed 
or  ini})liod,  there  is,  in  every  instance,  a  decision  of  the  right 
and  authority  to  hold  the  term  or  session  in  which  the  particu- 
lar matter  is  litigated.  Where  there  is  general  authority  over 
a  general  class  of  cases,  or  a  general  subject,  and  a  decision  is 
made  in  one  of  the  cases  of  the  general  class,  or  in  one  of  the 
cases  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  general  subject,  there  is 
always  a  judgment  by  a  tribunal  having  general  authority,  and 
such  a  judgment  is,  as  we  believe,  not  subject  to  impeachment 
in  a  collateral  proceeding.^  The  correctness  or  soundness  of 
the  judgment  of  a  tribunal  upon  the  question  whether  facts  or 


^  In  Bittain  v.  Kinnaird,  1  Brod.  & 
Bing.  (Eng.  C.  P.  R.)  432,  Dallas,  C. 
J.,  said:  "  The  magistrate,  it  is  urge<l, 
could  not  give  himself  jurisdiction  by 
finding  that  to  be  a  fact  which  did  not 
exist.  But  he  was  bound  to  inquire 
as  to  the  fact,  and  when  he  has  in- 
quired, his  conviction  is  conclusive  of 
it."  This  is  an  expression  of  the 
principle  we  have  endeavored  to  state 
and  enforce,  for  our  fundamental 
proposition  is  that  where  there  is 
general  authority  to  make  an  inquirj', 
or  to  ascertain  whether  certain  facts  or 
certain  conditions  exist,  there  is  an  im- 
plied authority  to  decide,  and  where 
there  is  a  decision  it  affirms  neces- 
sarily and  conclusively  as  against  a 
collateral  assault,  that  the  inquiry  has 
been  made  and  the  requisite  facts  or 
conditions  found  to  exist.  We  concur 
in  the  views  of  the  author  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  the  point  under  immediate 
mention,  from  whom  we  quote,  who 
thus  expresses  his  opinion  : 

"  By  assuming  to  act  at  all,  or  to  in- 
vestigate any  case,  the  tribunal  deter- 
mines that  a  valid,  constitutional  law 
authorizes  its  own  organization,  and 
that  it  has  been  dulv  orgunizeil;  that 


the  judge  or  judges  presiding,  and  the 
other  officers  present,  are  the  proper 
ones,  and  duly  (lualified  to  act,  and 
that  by  and  through  them  the  cor- 
porate tribunal  may  lawfully  act ;  and 
that  the  time  and  place  of  sitting  are 
authorized  by  law.  r>y  assuming  to 
order  process  for  the  defendant,  or  to 
pass  upon,  or  to  ratify  process  already 
issued,  the  tribunal  determines  that  a 
valid  constitutional  law  gives  it  juris- 
diction over  the  subject-matter  of  the 
particular  case  presented,  and  by  as- 
suming to  call  or  default  the  defend- 
ant, it  determines  that  process,  lawful 
in  form,  has  been  lawfully  served  up- 
on him  by  the  proper  officer  or  per- 
son at  the  proper  time  and  place.  By 
allowing  an  appearance,  it  determines 
that  the  person  so  appearing  has  the 
lawful  right  to  do  so.  All  questions 
concerning  the  organization  of  the 
tribunal,  the  time  and  place  of  its  sit- 
ting, its  jurisdiction  over  the  subject- 
matter,  its  right  to  issue  process  for 
the  defendant,  the  validity  of  the  pro- 
cess issued  and  service  made,  are 
questions  of  law  that  must  be  tlecided 
in  each  case."  Van  Fleet  Collateral 
Attack,  p.  2. 


168  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  18o 

conditions  exist,  authorizing  it  to  convene  and  hold  a  term  or 
session  is  of  no  importance  where  the  assault  is  collateral  and 
not  direct,  although  it  may  be  very  important  in  the  case  of  a 
direct  attack.  The  power  to  decide  necessarily  involves  the 
power  to  decide  wrong  as  well  as  right, ^  and  if  there  be  power 
to  decide,  the  nature  of  the  question  can  not  affect  the  exercise 
of  the  power,  for,  the  power  existing,  it  covers  and  embraces 
all  questions,  the  organization  of  the  tribunal  and  its  right  to 
hold  a  particular  session  or  term  as  well  as  all  others  lying 
within  the  sphere  of  the  tribunal's  general  authority.  The 
principle  that  the  decision  of  a  tribunal  upon  its  right  and 
authority  to  proceed  is  conclusive  is  an  old  one,  older,  indeed, 
than  any  American  court.  It  is  essential  to  the  due  administra- 
tion of  justice,  to  the  protection  of  courts  and  officers,  to  the 
peace  and  repose  of  society,  and  to  the  security  of  titles  to  prop- 
erty. Its  wise  and  salutary  practical  effect,  and  its  intrinsic 
merits  are  such  as  to  require  the  courts  of  justice  to  extend  and 
enlarge  its  operation  rather  than  to  limit  or  restrict  its  effect 
and  force. 

»  Snelson  v.  State,  16Ind.  29;  Chica-  lard  v.  Thomas,  19  Gratt.  14,  20,  waa 
go,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Sutton,  130  Ind.  405,  one  wherein  the  levy  of  a  tax  assess- 
412;  Coleman  V.  Floyd,  131  Ind.  330,  ment  by  the  county  court  came  in 
334;  Ely  v.  Board,  112  Ind.  361,  368;  question,  the  contention  of  the  appel- 
Young  V.  Sellers,  106  Ind.  101 ;  Voor-  lant  being,  as  it  is  here,  that  the  mem- 
heesv.  Jackson,  10  Pet.  449;  Elliott «.  bers  of  the  county  court  were  not 
Piersol,  1  Peter,  328,  340;  Million?;,  properly  summoned.  Answering  this 
Board,  89  Ind.  5;  Hunt  t;.  Hunt,  72  contention  the  court  said:  "When 
N.  Y.  217.  In  a  work  of  acknowledged  the  court  is  about  to  lay  the  county 
authority  it  is  said :  "There  is  noth-  levy,  the  first  question  to  be  deter- 
ing  absurd  or  illogical  in  holding  that  mined  is,  whether  the  justices  have 
a  body  of  limited  powers  may  deter-  all  been  summoned,  or,  if  they  have 
mine  whether  tlie  questions  which  are  not  been  summoned,  whether  a  ma- 
brought  before  it  admit  of  the  exercise  jority  of  them  is  present.  And  when 
of  its  powers.  If  limitation  of  power  the  court  proceeds  to  lay  the  levy,  it 
necessarily  excluded  the  right  of  ulti-  in  effect  determines  these  questions, 
mate  decision,  nothing  could  be  de-  and  decides  that  the  justices  have 
cided  finally  under  governments,  been  summoned,  or  that  a  majority  of 
which,  like  those  of  this  country,  are  them  is  present.  The  propriety  of 
throughout,  and  without  exception,  that  decision  can  not  be  called  in 
limited."  1  Smith's  Leading  Cases  question  in  any  collateral  proceed- 
(8th  Am.  ed.),  1110.    The  case  of  Bal-  ing." 


§  184  COURTS.  169 

§  184.   Presumption  as  to  regularity  of   orfranizatlon.— 

Where  a  court  assumes  to  proceed  in  a  cause  hclunging  to  a 
class  over  which  its  authority  extends,  the  presumption  is  that 
it  rightfully  proceeds.  Tliis  presumption  extends  to  every 
question  it  is  necessary  to  decide,  and,  hence,  extends  to  the 
question  of  the  legality  or  regularity  of  the  organization  as 
well  as  the  regularity  of  the  time  and  place  of  holding  the  term 
or  session. >  Where  there  is  no  ground  for  the  presumption  it 
can  not,  of  course,  be  indulged.  If  it  affirmatively  appears, 
from  the  record,  that  there  was  an  entire  absence  of  authority 
to  proceed,  or  that  the  term  or  session  was  held  at  a  time  pro- 
hibited by  law,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  a  presumption 
can  be  rested. 

§  185.  Relation  of  courts  to  other  governmental  depart- 
ments.— The  courts,  as  the  repositories  of  one  of  the  great  ele- 
ments of  sovereignty,  constitute  an  important  factor  in  the  sys- 
tem of  checks  and  balances  which  enter  so  largely  and  so  po- 
tently into  our  governmental  structure.  It  has  been  said  by 
some  of  the  courts  and  writers  that  the  division  and  distribu- 
tion of  governmental  powers  is  theoretical  rather  than  actual, 
but  from  this  doctrine  we  altogether  dissent.  It  is  true  that 
the  lines  which  separate  the  departments  are  often  shadowy  and 
indistinct,  so  that  it  is  exceedingly  diificult  to  trace  them  with 
precision  or  accuracy.  But  there  is  a  borderland,  and,  until  a  cer- 
tain line  is  neared,  it  is  a  wide  one.  The  fact  that  it  is  some- 
times difficult  to  determine  where  one  right  or  one  power  be- 
gins and  another  right  or  power  ends  is  very  far  from  proving 
that  there  is  no  dividing  line.  There  are  numerous  cases — a 
vast  majority,  indeed — where  the  difficulty  of  marking  and 
establishing  differences  between  resembling  things  or  rights, 
whether  springing  out  of  contracts  or  torts,  is  very  great  and 
exceedingly  perplexing,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  differ- 
ences exist.  The  strong  and  wise  judgments  of  the  courts,  be- 
ginning in  the  early  years   of  the  republic,  demonstrate  the 

'  Myers  v.  Mitchell  {!^.  Dak.),  46  N.     cliff  r.  State. 0(i  Ind.  309 ;  McCullough 
AV.  R.  245;    Cook  c.  Skelton,  20  111.     r.  Moore,  9  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  305. 
107;  Porter  v.  State,  2  Ind.  435;  Shir- 


170 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§185 


truth  of  the  conchision  that  there  is  an  actual  separation  be- 
tween the  governmental  departments,  and  the  practical  effect  of 
these  decisions  has  been  of  incalculable  good  to  the  country. 
Doubts  that  may  have  formerly  existed  as  to  whether  the  sepa- 
ration between  the  various  departments  of  government  was  spec- 
ulative and  not  real  are  completely  dispelled  by  the  decisions 
upon  the  subject,  for  there  is  no  substantial  conflict  in  the 
modern  cases  upon  the  general  question,  the  courts,  on  the  one 
hand,  sturdily  asserting  their  independence,^  and,  on  the  other, 
stoutly  maintaining  that  of  the  executive^  and  legislative  de- 
partments.'^   It  is  no  fanciful  line  which  keeps  the  courts  within 


'  District  of  Columbia  v.  Hutton,  143 
U.  S.  18;  Lentv.  Tillson,  140  U.  S.  316; 
In  re  Washington  Street,  132  Pa.  St. 
257,  S.  C.  7  Law  R.  Anno.  193,  19Atl. 
R.  219;  Meyer  t).  Berlandi,  1  Law  R. 
Anno.  777,  S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R.  513;  Be 
Application  Pacific,  etc.,  Commission, 
32  Fed.  R.  241 ;  Plumer  v.  The  Board, 
46  Wis.  163,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  416; 
City  of  St.  Joseph  v.Farrell  (Mo.)  ,17  S. 
W.R.497 ;  Wyatt  v.  People,16  Colo.252, 
28  Pac.  R.  961;  Clarkson  v.  Ryan,  17 
Canada  S.  C.  251;  Perkins  w.  Corbin, 
45  Ala.  103;  In  re  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  32 
Fed.  R.  241,  267;  Miller  v.  Horton, 
152  Mass.  540,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  850; 
State  V.  Armstrong,  3  Sneed  (Tenn.), 
634;  Greenough  v.  Greenough,  11  Pa. 
St.  489;  Turner  v.  Althaus,  6  Neb. 
54;  Smythev.  Boswell,  117  Ind.  365; 
Smith  V.  Myers,  109  Ind.  1 ;  Langen- 
berg  V.  Decker,  131  Ind.  471,  S.  C.  16 
Law  R.  Anno.  108,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R. 
190. 

*  United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S. 
306;  Adams  v.  Couch  (Ok.),  26  Pac. 
R.  1009;  State  v.  Abbott,  41  La.  Ann. 
1096,  S.  C.  6  So.  R.  805;  Sioux  City, 
«tc.,  Co.  V.  United  States,  34  Fed.  R. 
835;  Hope  v.  Board,  42  La.  Ann.  647, 
S.  C.  7  So.  R.  706;  United  States  v. 
Raum,  1.35  U.  S.  200;  P('oi)le  r.  (kjv- 
ernor,  29  Mich.  320;  Bates  v.  Taylor, 


87  Tenn.  319,  S.  C.  28  Am.  Law  Reg. 
341 ;  Hawkins  v.  Governor,  1  Ark.  570 ; 
State  V.  Governor,  25  N.  J.  L.  331 ; 
People -y.  Bissell,  19  111.  229;  Dennett, 
Petitioner,  32  Me.  508  ;  Mauran  v. 
Smith,  8  R.  I.  192;  People  i^.  Yates,  40 
111.  126;  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Governor, 
23  Mo.  353 ;  State  v.  Warmoth,  22  La. 
Ann.  1 ;  Rice  v.  Austin,  19  Minn.  103 ; 
Appeal  of  Hartranft,  85  Pa.  St.  433 ; 
State  V.  Drew,  17  Fla.  67;  People  v. 
Cullom,  100  111.  472.  Contra,  Gotten  v. 
Ellis,  7  Jones  (N.  Car.),  545;  Bonner 
V.  State,  7  Ga.  473;  States.  Governor, 
5  Ohio  St.  528 ;  Martin  v.  Ingham,  38 
Kan.  641,  S.  C.  17  Pac.  R.  162;  Hovey 
V.  State,  127  Ind.  588. 
3  State  V.  Kolsem,130  Ind.  434,  S.  C. 

14  Law  R.  Anno.  566,  29  N.  E.  R. 
595;   Wells  v.   Missouri,  etc.   (Mo.), 

15  Law  R.  Anno.  847,  S.  C.  19  S.  W. 
R.  530;  People  v.  McFadden,  81  Cal. 
489;  McGregor  V.  Baylies,  19  Iowa,43; 
Hovey  v.  Foster,  118  Ind.  502,  S.  C.  21 
N.  E.  R.  39;  People  i).  Creiger,  138  111. 
401,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  812;  Wilson  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  133  111.  443;  Wichita  v. 
Burleigh,  36  Kan.  34 ;  Gentile  v.  State, 
29  Ind.  409;  Evansville,  etc.,  v.  State, 
118  Ind.  426,  433,  S.  C.  4  Law  R.  Anno. 
93;  Brown  v.  Denver,  7  Colo.  305; 
Carpenter  v.  People,  8  Colo.  116;  State 
V.  Boone  County,  etc.,  50   Mo.   317; 


§  180  COLUTS.  171 

their  own  domain,  nor  are  the  boundaries  whicli  separate  the 
other  de])artnients  merely  imaginary  ones.  The  rights  which 
have  been  enforced  and  protected  by  the  courts  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  powers  of  government  are  distributed  to  inde- 
pendent departments  were  actual  rights  and  not  speculative 
ones,  so  that  the  consequences  resulting  from  the  principle  are 
in  the  strictest  sense  real  and  substantial.  The  position  of  the 
courts  must  necessarily  be  one  of  independence  and  not  of  sub- 
ordination or  of  co-ordination,  otherwise  they  could  not,  as 
they  have  done  time  and  time  again,  control  the  action  of  the 
legislative  and  executive  departments  in  instances  where  the 
officers  of  those  departments  have  transcended  their  constitu- 
tional power. 

§  186.  Rules — Definition. — Rules  of  a  court  are  regulations 
of  a  definite  character,  and,  in  a  restricted  sense,  are  minor 
laws.^  They  are  not  laws  in  the  general  sense  of  the  term,  but 
they  are  laws  in  the  sense  of  governing  the  practice  of  the  tri- 
bunal that  frames  and  promulgates  them.  The  court  is  bound 
by  them  as  well  as  the  parties. ^  Rules  are  more  than  orders 
of  court  made  with  reference  to  special  cases,  and  not  intended 
to  govern  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  the  tribunal  generally. 
Courts  can  not  make  laws  governing  primary  rights,  but  they 

State  V.  New  Madrid,  etc.,  51  Mo.  82;  ^  Rout    r.    Ninde,     111     Ind.    597; 

Hall  V.   Bray,   51    Mo.   288;  Stater.  Broom's  Legal  Max.  *134. 

Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  178,  S.  C.  81  Am.  *  Achorn  v.  Andrews  (Me.).  12  Atl. 

Dec.  503 ;  Beach  v.  Leahy,  11  Kan.  23 ;  R.  793 ;  Maloney  v.  Hunt,  29  Mo.  App. 

Davis  V.  Gaines,  48  Ark.  370;  Stock-  379;  Consolidated,  etc.,  Co.  r.  O'Neil, 

ton  V.  Powell  (Fla.),  15  Law  R.  Anno.  25  111.  App.  313;    Lancaster  v.  Wau- 

42,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  688 ;    Edmunds  v.  kegan,  etc.,  Co., 132  111.  492,  24  X.  E.  R. 

Herbrandson,  2  N.  Dak.  270,14  Law  R.  629 ;    David  v.  .Etna  Ins.  Co.,  9  Iowa, 

Anno.  725,  S.  C.  50  N.   W.  R.   970;  45;  Pratt r.  Pratt  (Mass.),  32  N.  E.  R. 

United  States  v.Des  Moines,  etc.,  Co.,  747.     If,  as  the  authorities  adjudge, 

142  U.  S.  510;  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  rules  have  the  effect  of  laws,  it  nmst 

Jordan,  16  Law  R.  Anno.  251,11   So.  necessarily   result  that  the   court    is 

R.  Ill;  Territory  v.  A.\\  Lim,  1  Wash,  bound  by  its  own  rules.     Courts  are 

156,  S.  C.  9  Law  R.  Anno.  395-;  AVill-  subject  to  the  law  as  fully  as  the  par- 

iams  V.  Nashville,  89  Tenn.  487,  S.  C.  ties.      Even    the  law-making   power 

15  S.  W.  R.  364;  Carter  v.  State,  42  itself  is  bound  by  a  law  it  has  enacted 

La.  Ann.  927,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  836.  until  the  law  is  repealed  or  abrogated 

in  some  constitutional  mode. 


172 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  186 


may  make  rules  governing  matters  of  procedure.  Rules  must, 
as  we  believe,  operate  generally  upon  all  parties  and  all  causes 
pending  in  the  tribunal  that  formulates  them,  for  a  court  can 
not  be  allowed  at  the  whim  or  caprice  of  the  judge  to  arbitrarily 
apply  a  rule  to  one  party  or  one  cause  and  deny  its  application 
to  other  causes  or  parties.  We  do  not  mean  to  be  understood 
as  asserting  that  the  court  has  no  discretion  in  enforcing  its 
rules;  on  the  contrary,  we  affirm  that  it  has  a  very  compre- 
hensive discretion,  but  we  also  affirm  that  parties  have  a  right 
to  have  the  rules  applied  uniformly,  and  that  where  the  cases 
are  the  same  no  purely  arbitrary  discrimination  shall  be  made.^ 
Parties  have  a  right  to  expect  that  the  rules  of  the  court  will 
be  given  effect  equally  to  all  who  stand  upon  the  same  footing. 


'  In  the  case  of  Thompson  v.  Hatch, 
3  Pick.  512,  it  was  said :  "  But  a  rule 
of  court  thus  authorized  and  made  has 
the  force  of  law,  and  is  binding  upon 
the  court  as  well  as  upon  parties  to  an 
action,  and  can  not  be  dispensed  with 
to  suit  the  circumstances  of  any  par- 
ticular case.  In  the  case  before  us 
the  plea  was  allowed  to  be  filed  on  the 
fifth  day  of  the  term,  although  the 
rule  allows  but  four  days  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  circumstances  were  such 
as  would  justify  that  order  of  the 
court,  if  it  had  had  power  to  pass  it ; 
but  we  are  satisfied  that  no  one  judge 
of  the  court  of  common  pleas  or  of  this 
court  has  authority  to  dispense  with 
rules  deliberately  made  and  promul- 
gated, on  account  of  the  hardship  of 
any  particular  case,  any  more  than  he 
would  have  authority  to  dispense  with 
any  requisition  of  the  legislature  itself. 
The  courts  may  rescind  or  repeal  their 
rules,  without  doubt,  or,  in  establish- 
ing them,  may  reserve  the  exercise  of 
discretion  for  particular  cases ;  but  the 
rule,  once  made  without  any  such 
qualification,  must  be  applied  to  all 
cases  which  come  within  it,  until  it  is 
repealed  by  the  authority  which  made 


it."  Stronger  language  is  used  in 
State  V.  Edwards,  110  N.  Car.  511,  S. 
0. 14  S.  E.  R.  741.  In  Quynn  v.  Brooke, 
22  Md.  288,  it  was  held  that  where  a 
rule  of  court  provided  that  ten  days* 
notice  should  be  given  before  taking 
testimony,  it  was  not  competent  for 
the  court  to  abridge  the  time  by  a 
special  order.  See,  also.  Wall  v.  Wall 
2Harr.  &  G.  (Md.)  79;  Burlington 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Marchand,  5  Iowa,  468 
David  V.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  9  Iowa,  45 
Walker  v.  Ducros,  18  La.  Ann.  703 
Hughes  V.  Jackson,  12  Md.  450;  Tripp 
V.  Brownell,  2  Gray,  402;  Ogden  v. 
Robertson,  15  N.  J.  L.  124;  Coyote, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Ruble,  9  Or.  121.  A  differ- 
ent doctrine  is  held  in  New  Hamp- 
shire. Deming  v.  Foster,  42  N.  H. 
165.  The  doctrine  of  the  case  last 
cited  can  not,  in  our  opinion,  be  sound. 
If  a  rule  of  court  has  the  effect  of  a 
minor  law,  the  court  can  not  vary  it 
by  a  special  order  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  judge.  It  is  held  in  Consolidated, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  O'Neil,  25  111.  App.  313, 
that  parties  may  assume  that  the  rules 
of  court  will  be  enforced,  and  that 
they  can  not  be  deemed  guilty  of  neg- 
ligence in  doing  so. 


§187 


COURTS. 


173 


Rules  of  court  should  not  be  retroactive,^  for  parties  can  not 
take  measures  to  comply  with  a  rule  until  it  is  established  and 
made  known.  In  strictness,  rules  should  be  placed  of  record, 
but  it  has  been  held  that  it  is  sufficient  if  they  are  tiled  in  the  of- 
fice of  the  clerk, '-^although  in  another  case  a  different  view  is  taken 
of  the  subject.'^  The  court  which  makes  the  rule  may  repeal 
or  abrogate  it,  but  it  has  been  held,  and,  as  we  believe  correctly, 
that  the  judge  in  vacation  can  not  annul  a  rule.*  Rules  of 
court  remain  in  force  although  there  may  be  a  change  in  the 
court.''  The  courts  that  frame  the  rules  are  considered  the  best 
judges  of  their  meaning  and  effect,  and  their  construction  of 
their  own  rules  will  be  respected  on  appeal  unless  palpably 
erroneous.^ 


§  187.  Rules — Power  to  frame. — It  is  well  settled  thai  courts 
possess  the  inherent  power  to  frame  rules  for  the  government 
of  their  business,  and  that  it  needs  no  express  statutory  decla- 
ration to  invest  them  with  this  power. ^     In  the  very  act  of  cre- 


'  Reist  V.  Hellbrenner,  11  S.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  131;  lUirlington,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Marchand,  5  Iowa,  4()8. 

^  State  r.  Ensley,  10  Iowa,  149.  See 
Mix  V.  Chandler,  44  111.  174. 

'Owens  r.  Ranstead,  22  111.  161. 
We  think  that  the  rules  of  the  court 
should  be  made  of  record.  They  are 
more  important  than  special  orders  or 
judgments,  and  the  spirit  of  the  law  is 
that  all  matters  of  a  permanent  and 
important  nature  should  be  duly  re- 
corded. It  has  often  been  said  that 
"courts  speak  only  by  their  records," 
and  surely  in  a  matter  so  important  as 
that  of  minor  laws  they  should  so 
speak . 

^Treishel  v.  McGill,  28  111.  App.  68. 

*  Shane  v.  McNeill,  76  Iowa,  459,  41 
N.  W.  R.  166. 

®  Snyder  v.  Bauchman,  8  S.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  336;  Blair  v.  Hubartt,  139  Pa.  St. 
96,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  210;  Baldwin  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  75  Iowa,  297,  S. 
C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  479. 


'  Fullerton  r.  Bank  of  United  States, 
1  Pet.  604  ;  Barry  r.  Randolph,  3  Binn. 
(Pa.)  277 ;  Dubois  v.  Turner,  4  Yeates 
(Pa.),  361 ;  Risher  r.  Thomas,  2  Mo. 
98;  Kennedy  r.  Cunningham,  2 
Metcf.  (Ky.)  538;  Brooks  v.  Boswell, 
34  Mo.  474 ;  Nutter  v.  Houston,  42  Mo. 
App.  .363 ;  III  re  Road  McCandlessTp., 
110  Pa.  St.  605,  S.  C.  1  Atl.  R.  594; 
Horner  r.  Horner,  145  Pa.  St.  2.58,  S. 
C.  23  Atl.  R.  441 ;  Gist  v.  Drakely,  2 
Gill.  (3Id.)  330;  Cochran  r.  Loring, 
17  Ohio,  409;  Harres  v.  Common- 
wealth, 35  Pa.  St.  416;  Krutz  v.  How- 
ard, 70  Ind.  174 ;  Brooks  v.  Boswell, 
34  Mo.  474 ;  Sellars  v.  Carpenter,  27 
Me.  497 ;  Walker  r.  Ducros,18La.Ann. 
703;  Hill  v.  Barney,  18  N.  H.  607; 
Ogden  V.  Robertson,  15  N.  J.  L.  124; 
Ferguson  v.  Kays,  21  N.  J.  L.  431 ; 
Estate  of  Boyd,  25  Cal.  511 ;  011am  r. 
Shaw,  27  Ind.  388;  Fox  v.  Conway 
Fife  Ins.  Co.,  53  Me.  107;  Stadler  !•. 
Hertz,  13  Lea  (Tenn.),  315;  Seymour 
V.  Phillips,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Biss.  (C.  C.) 


174  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  187 

ating  a  court  the  power  to  formulate  rules  ot  procedure  is 
vested  in  the  tribunal,  because  such  a  power  is  incident  to  its 
existence  as  a  court.  It  is  obvious  that  there  is  no  reason  for 
enumerating  all  the  attributes  and  powers  of  a  judicial  tribunal, 
since  inherent  attributes  and  powers  are  present  in  the  concep- 
tion of  such  a  tribunal,  as  part  of  the  thing  conceived  as  cre- 
ated or  existing.  The  power  to  formulate  rules,  comprehensive 
as  it  is,  does  not  authorize  a  court  to  establish  a  rule  that  con- 
flicts with  the  law.  No  rule  can  be  valid  which  is  in  conflict 
with  a  general  principle  of  law  or  the  provisions  of  a  statute.^ 
Where  a  rule  is  palpably  unreasonable  and  oppressive  it  will 
not  be  valid,  but  it  rests  upon  the  party  who  assails  it  to  make 
this  affirmatively  appear.  Thus,  a  rule  which  requires  a  party 
to  add  to  an  affidavit  for  a  change  of  venue  matters  not  re- 
quired by  a  statute,  which  fully  provides  what  the  affidavit 
shall  contain,  is  not  valid. ^  An  excuse  for  not  complying  with 
a  rule  may  be  shown, ^  but  in  order  to  escape  the  force  of  a  rule 
a  clear  and  strong  case  must  be  established.*  A  party  who 
seeks  to  excuse  a  failure  to  comply  with  a  rule  must  show  that 
he  has  not  been  guilty  of  negligence,  and  this  he  should  do  by 
the  statement  of  facts.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  party  to  take  notice 
of  the  rules  of  the  court  in  which  his  cause  is  pending,  and  he 
can  not  be  allowed  to  plead  ignorance  of  them  as  an  excuse  for 
his  failure  to  yield  them  obedience.     It  is  the  duty  of  an  attor- 

460;    Texas  Land  Co.  v.  Williams,  48  is  recognized,  but  it  is  held  that  they 

Texas,  602;    Fisher  «.  National  Bank  must  not  contravene  the  law.    The 

of  Commerce,  73  111.34;  Wyandotte,  court  cited  the   cases  of  Redman  v. 

etc.,  Co.  V.  Robinson,  34  Mich.  428;  State,  28  Ind.  205 ;   Galloway  v.  State, 

People  V.  Chew,  6  Cal.  636 ;  De  Lorme  29  Ind.  442 ;  Whittem  v.  State,  36  Ind. 

V.  Pease,  19  Ga.  220.  196 ;  Truitt  v.  Truitt,  38  Ind.  16 ;  Jeffer- 

»  The  Brig  Hiram,23  Ct.of  C1.431  ;De  sonville,    etc.,    Co  v.   Hendricks,    41 

Lorme  v.  Pease,  19  Ga.  220;  People  v.  Ind.  48;  Bennett  v.  Ford,  47  Ind.  264. 

McClellan,  .31  Cal.  101;     Mitchell  v.  ^  gjjoemaker  «.  Smith,    74  Ind.  71; 

Mitchell,  1  Gill.  (Md.)  66;  Suckley  v.  Galloway  v.  State,  29  Ind.  442;    Hays 

Rotchford,  12  Gratt.  (Va.)  60,  S.  C.  65  v.  Morgan,  87  Ind.   231 ;    Burkett  v. 

Am.  Dec.  240;    State  v.  Posey,  17  La.  Holman,  104  Ind.  6;    Bemhamer  v. 

Ann.   252,   S.    C.   87   Am.   Dec.   525;  State,  123  Ind.  577,  580;    Moulder  ?j. 

Crotty  V.  Wyatt,  3  Brad.   (111.  App.)  Kempff,  115  Ind.  459,  463. 

388,  399.  *  Riggenberg  v.  Hartman,  102  Ind. 

»  Kurtz  V.  Griffith,  68  Ind.  444.     In  537;  Witz  v.  Spencer,  51  Ind.  253. 
the  case  cited  the  power  to  frame  rules 


§  188  COURTS.  175 

ney  to  acquaint  himself  with  the  rules  of  court,  and  a  failure  to 
do  so  is  negligence  which  will  make  him  responsible  to  his 
client  in  case  loss  results  from  his  ignorance. 

§188.  Rules — Notice  of  by  other  courts. — A  rule  is  special 
to  the  court  by  which  it  is  adopted,  and  is  not,  therefore,  taken 
notice  of  by  other  courts.^  It  is  even  of  a  more  special  charac- 
ter than  a  special  statute,  and  there  is  the  greater  reason  for 
applying  the  doctrine  that  it  will  not  be  judicially  noticed  as 
a  matter  of  public  or  general  knowledge.  Where  a  rule  is 
sought  to  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  a  court  of  original  juris- 
diction other  than  the  court  by  which  it  was  adopted  it  should 
be  pleaded  specially,  and  where  it  is  sought  to  be  brought  to  the 
attention  of  an  appellate  tribunal  it  should  be  incorporated  in 
a  bill  of  exceptions,  or  in  some  other  authorized  mode  made 
part  of  the  record  proper.  A  rule  is  not  part  of  the  record 
proper  except,  perhaps,  as  to  the  court  which  framed  it,  so  that 
it  is  always  necessary  when  it  is  desired  to  bring  it  before  other 
tribunals  to  make  it  a  part  of  the  record. 

§  189.  Discretionary  powers — Nature  and  extent  of. — We 
have  elsewhere  spoken  in  a  general  way  of  the  discretionary 
power  of  judicial  tribunals,^  but  the  practical  importance  of 
the  subject  makes  it  proper,  if  not  necessary,  to  treat  it  more 
fully.  It  would  be  impossible  for  a  court  to  conduct  business 
if  it  were  entirely  stripped  of  all  discretionary  power.  There 
is  such  a  vast  multitude  of  matters  which  courts  are  required 
to  consider  and  decide  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  human 
foresight  and  wisdom  to  provide  general  and  fixed  rules  that 
shall  fit  the  vr.rious  phases  of  cases  with  which  the  courts  have 
to  deal.  Much  must,  of  necessity,  be  left  to  the  decision  of 
the  judge  in  the  particular  cases  that  come  before  him  for  trial 


'Crotty  ?'.Wyatt,  .3  Brad. (111.  App.),  be  done  by  the  law  of  the  land  must 

388,  399;  Knarr  v.  Conaway,  42  Ind.  be   noticed  by   another  court;   but  a 

260;  Rout  r.  Ninde,  111   Ind.  597.    In  court  of  error  can  not  notice  the  prac- 

Sandon  r.  Proctor,  7  B.  &  C.  800,  Hoi-  tice  of  another  court." 

royd,  J.,  said  :  "Anything  required  to  '  Ante,  §  181. 


176 


THE    WORK    CUT    OF    COURT. 


§189 


and  judgment.^  The  field  of  judicial  discretion  is  a  wide  one, 
but  it  is  not  unbounded.  Where  fixed  and  settled  rules  begin 
discretion  ends.  Not  that  there  is  no  discretion  in  applying 
fixed  rules  of  law,  but  that  where  fixed  rules  of  law  govern  they 
must  be  given  effect.'^  Judicial  discretion  is  not  a  mere  arbi- 
trary power  to  be  exercised  as  the  whims,  passions  or  caprice 
of  the  judge  may  dictate,  for  what  is  manifestly  unreasonable 
or  plainly  opposed  to  common  justice  no  judge  has  power  to 
do.^  He  may  exercise  his  reason  and  his  judgment,  but  when 
he  yields  to  passion,  prejudice  or  caprice  he  goes  beyond  the 
limits  of  discretion.     It  by  no  means  follows  that  because  there 


•  It  is  said  by  Mr.  Wait  that  "To 
anticipate  ever)'  conceivable  case  is 
not  a  possibility,  and  to  establish  a 
legal  rule  which  shall  cover  all  future 
contingencies  would  be  equally  im- 
practicable. It  is  a  wise  rule  which 
declares  that  as  much  shall  be  done 
as  is  practicable  to  provide  a  rule 
which  shall  govern  each  case  in  ac- 
cordance with  legal  principles  instead 
of  leaving  the  decision  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  judge.  For,  where  there 
is  a  legal  rule  of  decision,  every  one 
knows  what  that  rule  is,  and  he  has  a 
remedy  by  appeal  in  case  any  viola- 
tion of  the  rule  occurs  to  his  detri- 
ment. But  there  are  many  cases  in 
which  no  general  rule  can  be  applied, 
and  in  which  the  interests  of  the  par- 
ties and  of  the  public  will  be  best  sub- 
served l)y  leaving  the  disposition  of 
particular  questions  to  the  discretion 
of  the  judge  upon  all  the  facts  appear- 
ing in  the  cause.  As  the  law  now 
stands,  there  is  hardly  a  general  step 
in  the  progress  of  an  action  which  is 
not  more  or  less  liable  to  be  controlled 
by  the  discretion  of  the  judge."  1 
"Wait's  Pr.  463.  At  another  place  the 
same  author  says:  "This  discretion  is 
indispensable  to  a  wise  and  just  ad- 
ministration of  the  law,  for,  in  the 
multitudes  of  instances  which  occur 


in  practice,  the  particular  circum- 
stances of  each  case  require  consid- 
eration before  a  just  decision  can  be 
made.  And  no  general  rules  can  be 
adopted  which  would  reach  each  case 
and  do  entire  justice." 

*  Every  fixed  rule  of  law  applicable 
to  a  case  must  be  enforced  at  the  de- 
mand of  any  suitor.  When  it  is  said 
that  something  is  left  to  the  discretion 
of  a  judge,  it  signifies  that  he  ought  to 
decide  according  to  the  rules  of  equity 
and  the  nature  of  the  circumstances 
so  as  to  advance  the  ends  of  justice." 
Piatt  V.  Monroe,  34  Barb.  291 ;  Piggott 
V.  Ramey,  1  Scam.  (111.)  145;  Judges, 
etc.,  V.  People,  18  Wend.  79. 

^  Abbott  v.  L'Hommedieu,  10  W.  Va. 
677;  Rose  v.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122; 
Seymour  v.  Delancy,  3  Cowen,  445, 
S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  552;  People  v.  Su- 
perior Court,  5  Wend.  114;  Moon  v. 
Wellford,  84  Va.  34,  S.  C.  4  S.  E.  R. 
572;  Rooke's  Case,  5  Coke  R.  100a; 
Rex  V.  Wilkes,  4  Burr.,  2527;  Rex  v. 
Young, 1  Burr. ,556,560 ;  Dooley  v. Bark- 
er,2  Mo.App.325,328 ;  Dorman  v. State, 
34  Ala.  216,  235;  Faber  v.  Bruner,  13 
Mo.  541,  543;  State  v.  Cummings,  36 
Mo.  263,  279;  Tripp »;.  Cook,  26  Wend. 
143,  152;  Bailey  r.  Trafe,  29  Cal.  422; 
Stringer  v.  Davis,  .30  Cal.  318 ;  Ex  parte 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  129  U.  S.  206. 


^  189  COURTS.  177 

are  no  rigid  rules  a  judge  may  do  just  what  he  pleases,  for  even 
where  there  are  no  fixed  rules  marking  the  course  he  must  pursue 
he  must  keep  within  the  bounds  of  what  an  old  writer  calls 
' '  right  reason. ' '  Some  of  the  courts  have  said  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  discretion,  limited  and  absolute/  but  this,  we  say  with 
deference  and  respect,  can  not  be  true.  No  judge  can  have 
absolute  power,  and  absolute  discretion  implies  the  possession 
of  that  power.  It  would  be  a  dangerous  doctrine  to  concede  to 
judges  this  absolute  and  unrestrained  authority.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  discretion  is  limited  by  fixed 
rules  of  law,  for  where  there  are  fixed  rules  it  can  not  be  accu- 
rately said  that  discretionary  power  exists.  Where  the  power  is 
purely  discretionary  it  is  beyond  review  as  long  as  discretion 
is  not  transcended  or  abused, ^  but  if  the  judge  transcends  the 
bounds  of  judicial  discretion  or  abuses  it  to  the  prejudice  of  a 
party  the  appellate  court  will  award  relief.  In  order  to  secure 
the  interference  of  the  appellate  tribunal  a  very  clear  and  strong 
case  of  the  abuse  of  discretion  must  be  shown. -^  It  is  very  sel- 
dom that  the  appellate  courts  will  review  the  action  of  the 
courts  of  original  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  discretion,  and  the 
reports  abound  in  cases  where  the  appellate  courts  declined  to 
interfere,  but  contain  very  few  in  which  the  rulings  of  the  trial 
court  were  set  aside.  A  court,  upon  proper  request  duly  pre- 
ferred, is,  as  a  general  rule,  bound  to  exercise  the  discretionary 

*  People  V.  City  of  Syracuse,  78  N.  76  Ga.  101 ;  McBride^.  Northern,  etc., 
Y.  56,  61;  Howell  r.  Mills,  63  N.  Y.  Co.,  19  Oregon,  64,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R. 
322 ;  Anonymous,  59  N.  Y.  313.  814 ;  Grigsby  v.  Schwarz,  82  Cal.  278,  S. 

*  McLimans  v.  City  of  Lancaster,  57  C.  22  Pac.  R.  1041 ;  Albion,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Wis.  297 ;  Third  Great  Western,  etc.,  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Nev.  225 ;  Ray 
Co.  V.  Loomis,  32  N.  Y.  127 ;  Powell  v.  Northup,  55  Wis.  396. 

17.  Jopling,2  Jones  L.(N.C.)  400;  Davis  ^Seymour  v.  Board  of  Supervisors, 

V.  State,15  0hio,  72;  Gandolfo  v.  State,  40  Wis.  62;  Smith  v.  Smith,  51  Wis. 

11  Ohio  St.  114;    Dobbins  v.  State,  14  665,  668;  McLaren  v.  Kehlor,  22  Wis. 

Ohio  St.  493;  Holt  v.  State,  11  Ohio  297,  300;  Churchill  v.  Welsh,  47  Wis. 

St.  691 ;  State  v.  Barrett,  40  Minn.  65,  39,  54;   Tierney  r.  Union  Lumbering 

70,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  459;  Welch  v.  Co.,  47  Wis.  248;  Gordon  r.  Spencer,  2 

Wetzell  Co.,  29  W.  Va.  63,  S.  C.  1  S.  Blackf.  286;  Weinecker.  State  (Neb.), 

E.  R.  339;  State  v.  Maher,  74  Iowa,  51   N.  W.  R.  307;  Dobson  r.  Cothran, 

77,    S.  C.  37   N.  W.    R.   2;    Black  v.  34  S.  Car.  518,    13  S.  E.  R.   679;  Ez 

Thomson,  107  Ind.  162;    Stephenson  pa/-<e  Richardson  (Ala.),  11  So.  R.  316; 

V.  State,  110  L;d.  358;  Byne  v.  Smith,  Detro  v.  State,  4  Ind.  200,  202. 
12 


178 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§189 


power  with  which  it  is  vested,  but  it  can  not  be  compelled  to 
exercise  it  in  a  particular  mode.^  The  instances  in  which  trial 
courts  are  adjudged  to  possess  purel}'  discretionary  powers  are 
very  numerous.  In  relation  to  the  amendment  and  filing  of 
pleadings,  to  the  examination  of  witnesses,  to  the  conduct  of  the 
trial,  the  discretion  of  the  court  of  original  jurisdiction  is  very 
broad  and  comprehensive.^ 


'  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Adams,  9  Peters, 
573;  State  v.  Laughlin,  75  Mo.  358; 
Ex  parte  Henderson,  6  Fla.  279;  Ex 
parte  Dickson,  64  Ala.  188;  Floral 
Springs,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rives,  14  Nev. 
431 ;  State  v.  Cape  Girardeau,  etc.,  73 
Mo.  560;  State  v.  Rising,  15  Nev.  164; 
Ex  parte  Cage,  45  Cal.  248. 

"^  We  give  some  of  the  very  many 
cases  in  which  rulings  have  been  held 
to  be  made  in  the  exercise  of  discre- 
tionary power :  Amendment  and  filing 
of  pleadings. — Donald  v.  Nelson,  94 
Ala.  Ill,  S.  C.  10  S.  R.  317;  Emericu. 
Alvarado,  90  Cal.  44,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R. 
356;  Stensgaard  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co., 
60  Minn.  429,  52  N.W.  R.  910 ;  Miner  v. 
Baron,  131  N.  Y.  677,  S.  C.  30  N.  E. 
R.  481 ;  People  v.  Wayne,  etc.,  41  Mich. 
727,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  925 ;  Saint  v. 
Gucrrerio,  17  Colo.  448,  30  Pac.  R.  335 ; 
Johnson  v.  Swayze  (Neb.),  52  N.W.  R. 
835 ;  Moore  v.  Garner,  109  N.  Car.  157, 
S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  768;  Thompson  v. 
Thompson,  6  Hous.(Del.)  225 ;  Pincus 
V.  Dowd,  11  Mont.  88,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R. 
393;  Jenne  v.  Burt,  121  Ind.  275; 
Reeder  v.  Sayre,  70  N.  Y.  180,  189. 
Denying  leave  to  amend.— Chicago,  etc., 
V.  Jones,  103  Ind.  386;  Brauns  v. 
Stearns,  1  Or.  367 ;  Smith  v.  Gould,  61 
Wis.  31 ;  Hexter  v.  Schneider,  14  Ore. 
184;  Hollidayt?.  Elliott,  3  Ore.  340; 
AVeed,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philbrick,  70  Mo. 
646,  648.  Impaneling  the  jury. — Hud- 
son V.  State,  1  Blackf .  317 ;  State  v. 
Mann,  83  Mo.  589;  Burt  r.  Panjaud, 
99  U.  S.  180;  Pickens  v.    Hobbs,   42 


Ind.  270;  DePew  v.  Robinson,  95  Ind. 
109,  111;  Hopt  V.  Utah,  120  U.  S. 
430,  438;  Bibb  v.  Reid,  3  Ala.  88; 
People  V.  Arceo,  32  Cal.  40;  Grand 
Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jarvis,  30  Mich. 
308;  United  States  v.  Neverson,  1 
Mackey,  152.  But  the  discretion  of 
the  court  in  the  matter  of  selecting 
jurors  does  not  go  to  the  extent  of  per- 
mitting it  to  disregard  settled  rules 
regarding  the  qualifications  of  per- 
sons called  as  jurymen.  Mode  of  trial. 
— Fitz  Gerald  v.  Hay  ward,  50  Mo.  516 ; 
Martin  v.  Hall,  26  Mo.  386;  Dooley  v. 
Barker,  2  Mo.  App.  325 ;  Young  v.  Led- 
rick,  14  Kan.  92.  The  discretion  as  to 
the  mode  of  trial  is  a  limited  one,  for 
the  right  to  try  by  jury  or  by  the  court 
can  not  be  denied  where  the  law  fixes 
the  right.  In  chancery  cases  the  court 
may,  in  its  discretion,  submit  matters 
of  fact  to  a  jury  but  it  is  not  bound  to 
do  so.  Conduct  of  the  trial. — Crotty  v. 
Wyatt,  3  Brad.  (111.  App.)  388,  389; 
Wartena  v.  State,  105  Ind.  445,  447 ; 
Brooks  V.  Perry,  23  Ark.  32 ;  Weaver 
V.  State,  24  Ohio  St.  584;  State  v.  Col- 
lins, 72  N.  Car.  144 ;  Sullivan  v.  State, 
46  N.  J.  L.  446;  People  v.  Keenan,  13 
Cal.  581;  White  v.  People,*90  III.  117; 
Dille  V.  State,  34  Ohio  St.  617 ;  Hunt 
V.  State,  49  Ga.  255;  Baldwin  v.  Bur- 
rows, 95  Ind.  81 ;  Trice  v.  Hannibal, 
etc.,  Co.,  35  Mo.  416;  Dobbins  v.  Os- 
walt, 20  Ark.  619,  624;  Burson  v. 
Mahoney,  6  Baxt.  304,  307;  Freligh 
V.  Ames,  31  Mo.  253;  Hart  v.  State,  14 
Neb.  572;  People  t;.  Kelly,  94  N.  Y. 


§  190 


COURTS. 


179 


§  100.    Records. — Wo  urc  here  concerned  only  with  judicial 
records,  and  our  discussion  will  be  confined  to  records  of  that 


526;  Williams  v.  Commonwealth,  82 
Ky.  640;  Brooks  v.  Perry,  23  .Vrk. 
32;  State  v.  Jefferson,  4.3  La.  Ann. 
99.5,  S.  C.  10  S.  R.  199;  Felt  v. 
Cleghorn  (Colo.  App.),  29  Pac.  R.  813; 
Stater.  Ulrich  (Mo.), 19  S.  W.  R.G56; 
Milliken  r.  Mannheimer  (Minn.),  52 
N.W.  R.  139.  Consolidation  of  actions  or 
suits. — City  of  Springfield  v.  Sleeper, 
115  Mass.  587 ;  Kimball  v.  Thompson, 
4  Cush.  441 ;  Commonwealth  v.  James, 
99  Mass.  438 ;  Commonwealth  v. 
Powers,  109  Mass.  353.  Control  of  the 
sittings  of  the  court. — McGowen  v. 
Campbell,  28  Kan.  25,  30.  Intercourse 
between  the  bench  and  the  bar. — Long. 
V.  State,  12  Ga.  303,  330.  Competenoj 
of  witnesses. — Chateaugay,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Blake,  144  U.  S.  476;  Maughan  v. 
Burns  (Vt.),  23  Atl.  R.  583;  Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mugg,  132  Ind.  168, 
S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  564.  Separation  of 
tcitness  and  incidental  matters. — John- 
son V.  State,  14  Ga.  55 ;  State  v.  Zel- 
lers,  2  Halst.  (N.  J.)  220;  Southey  v. 
Nash,7  Car.  &  P.  632 ;  Hanvey  v.  State, 
68  Ga.  612 ;  State  v.  Brookshire,  2  Ala. 
303 ;  Sartorious  v.  State,  24  Miss.  602 ; 
State  V.  Fitzsimmons,  30  Mo.  236; 
Laughlin  v.  State,  18  Ohio,  99 ;  Rex  v. 
Cook,  13  How.  St.  Tr.  348;  State  v. 
Sparrow,  3  Marph.  (N.  Car.)  487; 
Bulliner  v.  People,  95  111.  394;  People 
V.  Boscovitch,  20Cal.  436;  Hubbard  v. 
Hubbard,  7  Ore.  42;  Smith  v.  State,  4 
Lea  (Tenn.),  428;  Parker  v.  State,  67 
Md.  329,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  387 ;  Davis 
V.  Byrd,  94  Ind.  525 ;  Burk  v.  Andis, 
98  Ind.  59;  State  v.  Thomas,  111  Ind. 
515,  S.  C.  60  Am.  R.  720;  Laughlin 
V.  State,  18  Ohio,  99,  S.  C.  51  Am. 
Dec.  444;  Keith  r.  Wilson,  6  Mo.  435, 
S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec.  443;  Cook  v.  State, 
30 Tex.  App.  607,  18S.W.  R.  412;  Carl- 
ton  V.   Commonwealth    (Ky.),    18  S. 


W.  R.  5.35.     But  the  court  has  no  right 
to  exclude  parties  from  the  court  room 
although     they     may     be     witnesses. — 
Schneider  c.  Haas,  14  Ore.  174,  S.  C. 
58  Am.  R.  296;  Tift  r.  Jones,  52  Ga. 
538;    Crowe  v.    Peters,   63   Mo.   429; 
Larue  v.  Russell,  26  Ind.  386;    Ryan 
u. Couch, 66  Ala. 244;  Chester??.  Bower, 
55  Cal.  46 ;  Watts  i'.  Holland,  56  Texas, 
54.  Delivery  of  evidence. — McCleneghan 
V.  Reid,  34  Neb.  — ,  51  N.  W.  R.  1037 ; 
State  V.  Howard,  a5   S.    Car.  197,  S. 
C.  14  S.  E.  R.  481 ;  Sandwich  v.  Dolan 
(111.),   31   N.    E.    R.   416;   Dobson   v. 
Cothran,  34  S.  Car.  518,  S.  C.  13  S.  E. 
R.  679;    Scoland  v.  Scoland,  4  Wash. 
118,  29  Pac.  R.  930 ;  People  v.  Durfee,62 
Mich.  487 ;   Walker  v.  Walker,  14  Ga. 
242;  Goodman  v.  Kennedy,  10  Neb. 
270;  Agate  v.  Morrison,  84  N.  Y.  672; 
Blake  v.  Powell,  26  Kan.  320 ;  Western 
Union   Tel.  Co.  v.  Buskirk,  107  Ind. 
549;  Noblesville,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Gause,  76 
Ind.  142;  McKinney  v.  Jones,  55  AVis. 
39;  Caldwell  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co., 
47  N.  Y.  282 ;     Johnson  v.  Mason,  27 
Mo.   511 ;    Larman    v.   Huey,    13    B. 
Monr.  436 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Richet- 
son,  5  Metcf.  (Mass.)  412;  Darland  r. 
Rosencrans,  56  Iowa,  122;    McDowell 
V.     Crawford,     11     Gratt.     377,     408; 
Beaulien    v.    Parsons,    2    Minn.    37; 
Nixon  v.  Beard,  111  Ind.  137;  Girault 
V.  Adams,  61  Md.  1,  9;  Riley  v.  State, 
88  Ala.  193,  S.  C.  7  S.  R.  149;  Testard 
V.  State,  26  Texas  App.  260,  S.  C.  9  S. 
W.  R.  888;  Stater.  Powell, 40 La.Ann. 
241  ;    Fogarty  r.  State,  80  Ga.  450,  S. 
C.  5.  S.  E.  R.  782;  Hornsby  r.  South 
Carolina,  etc.,  Co.,  26  S.  Car.  187,  S.  C. 
1    S.  E.  R.  594.     Examination  of  wit- 
nes.^es. — Lockwood  r.  Rose,  125   Ind. 
588,  595;   Ferguson  v.  Rutherford,  7 
Nev.   385;  Kalk  v.  Fielding,  50  Wis. 
339;  Bowers  r.  Mayo,  32  Minn.  241; 


180 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§   190 


general  class.  We  mean  by  judicial  records  those  wherein  the 
proceedings  of  courts  or  judicial  tribunals  are  recorded  or  reg- 
istered. The  term  "record"  often  means  a  complete  history 
of  the  rulings,^  orders  and  transactions  of  the  court  in  a  spe- 
cial case,  and  it  is  frequently  employed  as  signifying  the  book 
or  books  containing  the  entries  of  orders,  rulings  and  judgment 
in  all  cases.  In  appellate  procedure  the  term  "  record  "  usually 
means  the  papers  and  instruments  properly  before  the  court  on 


Schuster  v.  Stout,  30  Kan.  529 ;  Wal- 
lace V.  Taunton,  etc.,  Co.,  119  Mass. 
91 ;  Kellogg  v.  Nelson,  5  Wis.  125, 131 ; 
Moody  i-.Ro\vell,17  Pick.490,498 ;  State 
r.LuIl,  37  Me.  246 ;  Farmers,  etc., Co.  v. 
Groff,  87  Pa.  St.  124;  Hopkinson  v. 
Steel,  12  Vt.  582;  Donnell?'.  Jones,  13 
Ala.  490;  Whiting  v.  Mississippi,  etc., 
Co.,  76  Wis.  592,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R. 
672 ;  Obernalte  v.  Edgar,  28  Neb.  70, 
S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R.  82;  Parker  v. 
Georgia,  etc.,  Co.,  83  Ga.  539,  S.  C.  10 
S.  E.  R.  233;  Smith  v.  Hays,  23  111. 
App.  244;  Lawson  v.  Glass,  6  Colo. 
134;  Pennsylvania  Co.  u.  Newmeyer, 
129  Ind.  401,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  860; 
Springfield  v.  Dalbey,  139  111.  134,  S.  C. 
29  N.  E.  R.  860;  Willitts  v.  Schuyler, 
3  Ind.  App.  118, 29  N.  E.  R.273 ;  Sanger 
v.  Flow,  48  Fed.  R.  152;  Drexel  v. 
Pease,  129  N.  Y.  96,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 
241.  Appointment  of  receivers. — Buena- 
vista,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chattanooga,  etc., 
Co.,  87  Ga.  689,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  684; 
Nimocks  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  Co.,  110 
N.  Car.  230,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  622; 
Allen  V.  Nussbaum,  87  Ga.  470,  S.  C. 
13  S.  E.  R.  635 ;  Texas  Trunk,  etc.,  Co. 
«.  Hogg,  83  Texas,  1, 18  S.  W.  R.  199. 
Granting  a  new  trial. — Hudson  v.  Hud- 
son,87  Ga.678,S.C.13S.E.R.583;  Vick- 
ery  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga.  365, 15 
S.  E.  R.  464 ;  Denver  v.  Jacobson,  17 
Colo.497,30  Pac.R.246 ;  Grant  v.  Grant, 
109  N.  Car.  710,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  90; 
Edsall  V.  Ayers,  15  Ind.  286 ;  White  v. 
Poorman,  24  Iowa,  108;    Chapman  v. 


Wilkinson,  22  Iowa,  541;  Stork  v. 
Judge,  etc.,  41  Mich.  5;  Alderman  v. 
Montcalm,  41  Mich,  550.  See  au- 
thorities cited  Elliott's  App.  Pro., 
§  516.  Discharge  of  jury  before  ver- 
dic?.— Winsor  v.  The  Queen,  6  B.  &  S. 
143;  Queen  v.  Charlesworth,  1  B.  & 
S.  460;  State  t?.  Walker,  26  Ind.  346. 
*  In  Sayles  v.  Briggs,  4  Metcf. 
(Mass.)  421,  the  court  said:  "A  rec- 
ord is  a  memorial  or  history  of  the 
judicial  proceedings  in  a  case,  com- 
mencing with  the  writ  or  complaint, 
and  terminating  with  the  judgment ; 
and  the  design  is,  not  merely  to  set- 
tle the  particular  question  in  differ- 
ence between  the  parties,  or  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  subject,  but  to  furnish 
fixed  and  determinate  rules  and  prec- 
edents for  all  future  like  cases.  A 
record,  therefore,  must  be  precise  and 
clear,  containing  proof  within  itself 
of  every  important  fact  upon  which 
the  judgment  rests."  Greene  County 
V.  Wilhite,  35  Mo.  App.  39.  See  Mon- 
tana Ry.  Co.  V.  Warren,  137  U.  S.  348, 
S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  641 ;  Watts  v.  Over- 
street,  78  Tex.  571,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R. 
704;  Newell  ?7.  Meyendorff,9  Mont.254, 
23  Pac.  R.  333;  Spangler  v.  San  Fran- 
cisco, 84  Cal.  12,  S.  C.  18  Am.  St.  R. 
158;  Davidson  v.  Murphy,  13  Conn. 
213,  217;  Hahn  v.  Kelley,  34  Cal.  391, 
422;  Murfree  v.  Carmack,  4  Yerg. 
(Tenn.)  269;  Matter  of  Christein,  11 
Jones  &  Spen.  (N.  Y.)  523. 


§  190  COURTS.  181 

appeal,  and  so  it  does  where  the  reference  of  court  or  counsel 
is  made  to  the  record  in  a  purticuhir  case.  As  is  true  of  nearly- 
all  the  words  in  our  language,  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  rec- 
ord "  is  to  be  determined  by  a  consideration  of  the  words  with 
which  it  is  associated.  It  is  important  to  note  a  distinction 
between  what  may  be  called  the  record  proper  or  the  intrinsic 
record,  and  what  may  be  called  the  special  record.  We  mean 
by  the  "  intrinsic  record,"  or  "the  record  proper,"  that  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  order  without  special  acts  or  re- 
quests from  the  parties.  By  "  special  record  "  we  mean  a  rec- 
ord to  which  additions  are  made  in  the  particular  case  at  the 
request  of  a  party.  To  illustrate  by  familiar  examples,  a  judg- 
ment, a  ruling  on  demurrer,  or  the  like,  are  parts  of  the  rec- 
ord proper,  but  testimony,  collateral  motions,  affidavits,  or  the 
like,  are  not,  and  to  become  matters  of  record  they  must  be 
brought  in  by  a  bill  of  exceptions  or  in  some  other  specific 
mode.  What  a  special  record  contains  is  of  record  when  the 
special  matters  are  properly  brought  in,  but  matters  that  are 
directly  a  part  of  the  business  of  the  court,  and  immediately 
connected  with  its  rulings  and  decisions,  are,  without  special 
action,  part  of  the  record  proper.^     This  distinction  is  one  of 

^Pleadings  are  part  of  the  record  2  "Wash.  541,  27  Pac.  R.  477;  Whidby 
proper. — Gibbs  v.  Dickson, 33  Ark. 107 ;  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nye,  5  Wash.  301,  31 
State  V.  Godwin,  5  Ire.  (N.  C.)  401,  S.  Pac.  R.  752;  Elliott's  App.  Procedure, 
C.  44  Am.  Dec.  42;  Washington  Ice  §§  190,  191.  See  Bill  of  Exceptions. 
Co.  V.  Lay,  103  Ind.  48 ;  Burntrager  v.  The  summons  is  not,  ordinarily,  a  neces- 
McDonald,  34  Ind.  277;  Board  v.  sary  part  of  record  where  there  is  an  ap- 
Montgomery,  109  Ind.  69;  Stater,  pearance,  but  tchere  there  is  a  default  it 
Earl,  133  Ind.  389,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  is  othencise.  McCoy  v.  Trucks,  121 
1126;  Stimson  v.  Higgins,  9  How.  Pr.  Ind.  292;  Shewalter  r.  Bergman,  123 
86;  Vail  f.  Iglehart,  69  111.  332;  Stevi-  Ind.  155.  Judgments  and  decrees 
son  t\  Earnest,  80  111.  513;  Emery  v.  must  be  entered  in  the  proper  record. 
Whitwell,  6  Mich.  486;  Clark  r.  De  Hall  v.  Hudson,  20  Ala.  284;  New- 
Pew,  25  Pa.  St.  509,  S.  C.  64  Am.  Dec.  comb's  Lessee  v.  Smith,  5  Ohio,  447, 
717.  Direct  motions  are  part  of  the  rec-  451;  Raymond  v.  Smith,  1  Metcf. 
ord  proper,  but  collateral  motions  are  (Ky.)  65,  S.  C.  71  Am.  Dec.  458.  There 
not. — Hauser  V.  Roth,  37  Ind.  89;  Sid-  is,  of  course,  an  essential  difference 
ener  r.  Davis,  87  Ind.  342;  Pratt  v.  in  cases  where  the  question  arises  in 
Rice,  7  Nev.  123;  United  States  v.  direct  proceedings  and  cases  where  it 
Parrott,  McAll.  (U.S.)  447;  Freshour  arises  in  a  collateral  attack.  Roberts 
r.  Logansport,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Ind.  463;  r.  lUirrell,  3  Thomp.  &  Cook,  30; 
Curry    v.    City    of     Spokane    Falls,  Houston  v.  Walcott,  1  Iowa,  86.     See, 


182 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§190 


practical  importance,  especially  where  cases  are  prepared  for 
appellate  courts  or  carried  up  on  appeal.  To  make  an  entry- 
part  of  the  record  proper  it  must  be  authorized  by  law  or  by 
the  order  of  the  court.  The  statements  written  in  the  book  or 
books  wherein  the  proceedings  of  the  court  are  kept  by  a  min- 
isterial officer  are  not  part  of  the  record  unless  they  are  put 
there  by  order  of  the  court  or  in  the  performance  of  official 
duty.^  The  minute  book  of  the  clerk  is  the  record  for  many 
purposes,  but  it  is  not  ordinarily  the  final  or  authentic  record, 
since,  as  a  general  rule,  it  is  supplanted  by  the  regular  and 
formal  record  made  up  as  the  law  requires.^  In  strictness  the 
judge,  or  the  proper  judicial  officer,  should  sign  the  record  but 
his  omission  to  do  so  does  not  render  the  judgment  void,  nor, 
as  we  believe,  does  it  constitute  such  material  error  as  will 
authorize  a  reversal  of  the  judgment.^     It  is  probably  true  that 


generally,  Gunn  v.  Plant,  94  U.  S. 
664;  Hollister^.  Giddings,  24  Mich. 
601 ;  Kambieskey  v.  State,  26  Ind.  225. 
'Young  V.  Martin,  8  Wall.  354; 
State  V.  Acker,  52  N.  J.  L.  259,  S.  C. 
19  Atl.  R.  258;  People  v.  Beaver,  83 
Cal.  419,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  321 ;  Ten- 
nessee Co.  V.  Alabama  Co.,  81  Ala.  94; 
Clarke  v.  Kane,  37  Mo.  App.  258; 
Vandekarr  v.  State,  51  Ind.  91 ;  Board 
V.  Slatter,  52  Ind.  171;  Lewis  v.  God- 
man,  129  Ind.  359,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R. 
563;  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shanks, 
132  Ind.  395,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  1111; 
Fisher  v.  United  States  (Okl.),  31  Pac. 
R.  195;  Swearingen  v.  Wilson  (Texas 
Civ.  App.),  21  S.  W.  R.  74;  Sutherland 
V.  Putnam  (Ariz.),  24  Pac.  R.  320; 
Baker  v.  Swift,  87  Ala.  530,  S.  C.  6  So. 
R.  153;  People  ?;.  O'Brien,  78  Cal.  41, 
S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  359;  Thompson  v. 
Ridelsperger,  144  Pa.  St.  416,  S.  C.  22 
Atl.  R.  826;  Gould  v.  Howe,  127  111. 
251;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yando,  127 
111.  214;  Bowen  v.  Fox,  99  N.  C.  127, 
S.  C.  5  S.  E.  R.  437;  Watson  v.  Com- 
monwealth, a5  Va.  867,  S.  C.  9  S.  E. 
R.  418.     Entries  on  the  judge's  docket 


are  held  not  to  be  part  of  the  record 
proper.  McCormick  v.  Wheeler,  36 
111.  114,  S.  C.  85  Am.  Dec.  388;  Lewis 
V.  May,  22  Iowa,  599;  Rogers  v.  Mor- 
ton, 51  Iowa,  709;  Case  v.  Plato,  54 
Iowa,  64;  Stark  v.  Billings,  15  Fla. 
318;  Miller  v.  Wolf,  63  Iowa,  233; 
Young  V.  Buckingham,  5  Ohio,  485; 
Burney  v.  Boyett,  1  How.  (Miss.)  39; 
State  V.  Manley,  63  Iowa,  344 ;  Towle 
V.  Leacox,  59  Iowa,  42.  But  the  en- 
tries of  the  judge  may  be  used  as  a 
memorial  for  a  nunc  pro  tunc  order. 
McCormick  v.  Wheeler,  supra. 

"  Barnes  v.  Lee,  1  Cranch  (U.  S.  C. 
C),  430;  Willard  v.  Whitney,  49  Me. 
235 ;  Taylor  v.  Commonwealth,  44  Pa. 
St.  131. 

3  Fontaine  v.  Hudson,  93  Mo.  62,  S. 
C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  515;  Platte  County  v. 
Marshall,  10  Mo.  346;  Childs  v.  Mc- 
Chesney,  20  Iowa,  431,  S.  C.  89  Am. 
Dec.  545;  Cannon  v.  Hemphill,  7 
Texas,  184;  Crim  v.  Kessing,  89  Cal. 
478;  Baker  v.  Baker,  51  Wis.  538; 
Traer  v.  Whitman,  56  Iowa,  443; 
Clapp  V.  Hawley,  97  N.  Y.  610;  Gunn 
V.  Tackett,   67    Ga.    725;    Keener  v. 


§190 


COURTS. 


183 


where  the  statute  in  clear  and  imperative  terras  makes  it  es- 
sential to  the  effectiveness  or  validity  of  the  proceedings  that 
the  record  should  be  signed  by  the  proper  officer  the  rule 
would  be  different,  bu.t  where  there  is  no  such  imperative  re- 
quirement the  omission  to  sign  the  record  is  not  necessarily 
fatal.  A  judgment  entered  in  the  wrong  book  of  records  is 
not  void  as  between  the  parties/  but  if  an  innocent  third  per- 
son should  be  misled  to  his  prejudice  we  suppose  it  quite  clear 
that  he  would  be  entitled  to  relief  if  he  was  himself  free  from 
fault,  and  not  lacking  in  diligence  or  care.  There  must,  of 
course,  be  some  written  memorial  or  entry  of  a  judgment  or 
decree,  or  else  it  can  not  be  said  to  have  a  legal  existence,^  but 
no  particular  form  is  required.'^     This  general  statement  is  a 


Goodson,  80  N.  Car.  273;  French  v. 
Pease,  10  Kan.  51 ;  Cathcart  v.  Peck, 
11  Minn.  45;  State  v.  Bliss,  21  Minn. 
458,  462;  Slocomb,  Richards,  etc.,  Ex 
parte,  9  Ark.  (4  Eng.)  375;  RolUnsu. 
Henry,  78  N.  Car.  342,  340;  Keener  v. 
Goodson,  CO  N.  Car.  273,  277;  East- 
man V.  Harteau,  12  Wis.  267,  275. 
Contra,  Ferguson  v.  Chastant,  35  La. 
Ann.  485;  Saloy  v.  ColHns,  30  La. 
Ann.  63;  State  v.  Jumel,  30  La.  Ann. 
421 ;  Galbraith  v.  Sidener,  28  Ind.  142 ; 
Raymond  v.  Smith,  1  Metcf.  (Ky.)  65, 
S.  C.  71  Am.  Dec.  458.  See,  generally, 
Ringle  V.  Weston,  23  Ind.  588;  State 
V.  Wanee,  4  Ind.  App.  1,  S.  C.  30 
N.  E.  R.  161 ;  Kambieskey  v.  State,  26 
Ind.  225;  Hollister  v.  Giddings,  24 
Mich.  501. 

'Sprigg  r.  Stmnp,  8  Fed.  R.  207, 
212;  Hopper  r.  Lucas,  86  Ind.  43,  50; 
Bond  r.  Citizens,etc.,Bank,65  Md.498 ; 
Thompson  v.  Rickford,  19  Minn.  17. 

"  Jones  V.  Walker,  5  Texas,  427 ; 
Davidson  v.  Murphy,  13  Conn.  213; 
^Meeker  r.  Van  Rensselaer,  15  Wend. 
307;  Boker  r.  Bronson,  5  Blatchf.  5; 
Knapp  V.  Roache,  82  N.  Y.  366; 
Witter  V.  Dudley,  42  Ala.  616;  Strom- 
burg  V.  Earick,  6  B.  Monr.  578; 
Benaway  v.  Bond,  2  Pinney  (Wis.), 


449,  S.  C.  54  Am.  Dec.  147.  See, 
generally,  Mudge  v.  Yaples,  58  Mich. 
307,  S.  'C.  25  N.  W.  R.  297;  Post  v. 
Harper,  61  Mich.  434,  S.  C.  28  N.  W. 
R.  161 ;  Reed  v.  Gage,  33  Mich.  179 ; 
Mayhew  v.  Snell,  33  Mich.  182 ;  Fish 
V.  Emerson,  44  N.  Y.  376;  Wright  ». 
Fletcher,  12  Vt.  431  ;  Strong  r.  Bradly, 
13  Vt.  9;  Nye  r.  Kellam,  18  Vt.  594; 
Ellsworth  r.  Learned,  21  Vt.535 ;  Rock- 
wood  V.  Davenport,  37  Minn.  533; 
Eastham  v.  Sallis,  60  Texas,  576 ;  Hall 
V.  Hudson,  20  Ala.  284. 

'Little,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Little,  etc.,  Co., 
11  Colo.  223,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  226 ; 
Terry  v.  Berry,  13  Nev.  514;  Kase  v. 
Best,  15  Pa.  St.  101,  S.  C.  53  Am.  Dec. 
573;  Elliott  r.  Jordan,  7  Baxt.  376; 
Clark  r.  Melton,  10  S.  Car.  498;  Bank 
of  the  Old  Dominion  v.  McVeigh,  32 
Gratt.  530;  Church  v.  Grossman,  41 
Iowa,  373;  Potter  v.  Eaton,  26  Wis. 
382;  McNamara  v.  Gabon,  21  Neb. 
589;  Flack  v.  Andrew,  86  Ala.  395; 
Spence  v.  Simmons,  16  Ala.  828.  See, 
generally, Ollis  c.  Kirkpatrick (Idaho), 
28  Pac.  R.  435;  Bode  v.  Investment 
Co.,  1  N.  D.  121 ;  Crim  v.  Kessing,  89 
Cal.  478,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  1074;  Bode 
V.  Investment  Co.,  6  Dak.  499;  Jeffries 
V.  McNamara,  49  Ind.    142;    Burge  v. 


184  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  191 

correct  expression  of  the  general  rule,  but  it  is  to  oe  under- 
stood that  the  entry  of  record  is  not  the  judgment.  The  entry 
of  the  judgment  is  evidence,  tlie  decision  of  the  court  is  the 
judgment  or  decree.  This  distinction  is  sometimes  important 
since  there  may  in  some  cases  be  process  taken  out  upon  the 
judgment  or  other  action  based  upon  it,  prior  to  its  formal  en- 
try of  record.^  The  safe  practice,  however,  is  to  have  the 
judgment  entered  before  attempting  to  put  it  into  execution. 

§  191.  Control  of  record. — It  is  an  old  and  firmly  settled 
rule  that  a  court  during  term  may  correct  errors  or  mistakes 
in  its  records.  In  every  court  resides  the  general  right  and 
power  to  make  "its  records  speak  the  truth,"  but,  as  will  be 
developed  when  we  come  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  making 
entries  "now  for  then,"  there  is  an  essential  difference  in 
practice  between  the  right  to  correct  records  during  term  and 
the  right  to  correct  them  after  the  close  of  the  term.  It  is, 
perhaps,  not  quite  accurate  to  assert  that  the  principle  is  dif- 
ferent in  the  two  classes  of  cases,  for  the  actual  difference  is 
rather  as  to  the  mode  of  exercising  the  right  than  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  right  itself.  As  long  as  the  proceedings  are  in 
fieri  the  control  of  the  record  is  in  a  sense  more  complete  and 
approaches  near  the  absolute;  but,  after  the  term  ends,  the 
right  is  somewhat  abridged  and  limited,  but  it  is  by  no  means 
extinct.  During  the  term  the  proceedings,  as  has  been  often 
said,  "remain  in  the  breast  of  the  judge,"  and  he  may  alter 
or  amend  "according  to  the  truth  and  right. "^   The  court  has 

Shirk,  10  Ind.  396;  Needham  v.  Gil-  of  Cook,  77  Cal.  220,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St. 

laspy,   49   Ind.  245;  Duerison  r.  Bel-  R.  207;  Schuster  v.   Rader,   13  Colo, 

lows,    1    Blackf.    217;    Wernwag    v.  329;  Estate  of  Newman,  75  Cal.  213, 

Brown,  3  Blackf.  457.     As  shown  in  S.  C.  7.  Am.  St.  R.  146 ;  Matthews  v. 

some  of    the  cases  cited,   the  entry  Houghton,  11  Me.  377;  Fish  t).  Emer- 

should  identify  the  parties  named  in  son,  44  N.  Y.  376;  Crim  v.  Kessing, 

the  pleadings,  but  art  error  in  this  re-  89  Cal.  478:  Conwell  v.  Kuykendall, 

spect  is  not  always  fatal.     Haynes  v.  29  Kan.  707. 

Backman  (Cal.) ,  31  Pac.  R.  746.  ^  3  Black.  Com.  407 ;  Saunders  v.  Cof- 

1  Ex  parte  Raye,  63  Cal.  491 ;  Davis  v.  fin,  16  Ala.  421 ;    Amory  v.  Reilly,  9 

Shaver,  1  Phill.  (N.  Car.)  18,  S.  C.  91  Ind.  490,  494;  Layman  v.  Graybilf,  14 

Am.    Dec.   92;    Los   Angeles   County  Ind.  166;  Hansen  ?'.  Schlesinger,  125 

Bank  v.  Raynor,  61  Cal.  145;   Estate  111.  230;  Memphis  v.  Brov-n,  94  U.  S.. 


§  191  COURTS.  185 

power,  we  think  it  well  to  suggest  in  oraer  to  avom  misunder- 
standing, to  change  rulings  made  by  it  prior  to  final  judgment 
during  term,  and  this  power,  as  is  obvious,  is  quite  different 
from  the  power  to  alter  or  amend  a  record.  The  power  to 
change  a  ruling  or  decision  is  more  limited  than  the  power  to 
make  changes  in  the  record.  After  a  final  decision  or  final 
judgment  we  think  it  quite  doubtful  whether  the  power  to  make, 
of  its  own  volition,  another  decision  or  give  another  judgment 
exists  in  any  court. ^  We  do  not  doubt  that  a  court  may  grant 
a  motion,  as  for  a  new  trial  or  the  like,  and  thus  vacate  its 
judgment,  but  we  very  much  doubt  whether  it  can  without  a 
new  hearing  or  new  trial,  effectively  and  completely  recall  a 
final  judgment  it  has  announced.  In  many  of  the  States  the 
right  to  voluntarily  dismiss  an  action  ceases  as  soon  as  the 
court  announces  its  finding  or  judgment,  and  in  those  States 
the  announcement  can  not  be  withdrawn  so  as  to  permit  the 
plaintiff  to  dismiss  his  action.  Whore  rights  in  their  nature 
final  are  concluded  by  a  decision  or  judgment,  and  there  is  a 
specific  mode  of  review  or  of  making  a  change  in  the  decision 
or  judgment,  we  suppose  the   mode   prescribed  must  be   fol- 

715;    Robinson  v.  Commissioners,  12  270,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  282;  Quigley  v. 

Md.  132;    Lane  v.  Ellinger,  32  Texas,  Birdseye,  11  Mont.  439,  S.  C.  28  Pac. 

369;  Green  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  11  R.  741 ;  State  v.  Tate,  109  Mo.  265,  S. 

AV.  Va.685;  Brown  v.  Brown,  53  Wis,  C.  18  S.  W.  R.   1088;    Day  t^.  Argus, 

29 ;    De  Castro  v.  Richardson,  25  Cal.  etc.,  Co.,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  594,  S.  C.  22  Atl. 

49;     Stahl   v.   Webster,   11    111.  511;  R.  1056. 

Moore  v.  Taylor,  1  Idaho  (N.  S.),  630;  '  Owen  r.  Bankhead,  82  Ala.  399,  S. 

United  States  v.Harminson,3Saw^(U.  C.  3  So.  R.  97;  Wray  v.  Hill,  85  Ind. 

S.  C.  C.)  556 ;  Morgan  v.  Eggers,127  U.  546 ;  Levy  v.  Chittenden,  120  Ind.  37 ; 

S.  63;   State  v.  Dougherty,  70  Iowa,  Hartlepp  r.  Whiteley,  129  Ind.  576; 

439;    Barrel!  v.  Tilton,  119  U.  S.  637 ;  Clark  r.  State,  125  Ind.  1 ;  Hartlepp  v. 

Goddard  v.  Ordway,  101   U.  S.  745;  WliitelyetrtZ.,  131Ind.543.  SeeCowles 

Wolmerstadt  v.  Jacobs,  61  Iowa,  372;  v.  Curry,  96  N.  Car.  331,  where  it  is 

Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nichols,  109  U.  held  that  if  a  judge  substitutes  a  judg- 

S.  232;  Obenchain  r.  Comegys,  15  Ind.  ment    for  one  previously  given,  that 

496;    Sexton  v.  Bennett,  63  Ilun,  624.  the  question  must  be  first  made  in  the 

See,  generally,  Brusier.  Peck,  62  Hun,  trial  court  or  it  will  not  be  available 

248,  S.  C.  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  645;   Hall  v.  on  appeal.     See,  generally,  Snowden 

Merrill,  47  Minn.  260,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  r.  Preston,  73  Md.  261,  S.  C.  20  Atl. 

R.  280 ;   Nell  r.  Dayton,  47  Minn.  257,  R.  910 ;  Raddyffe  r.  Barton,  154  Mass. 

S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  981 ;    Township  of  157,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  148. 
Hiawatha  r.School  Craft,etc.,  90  Mich. 


186  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  192 

lowed;  but  aecisions,  or  orders,  in  their  nature  intermediate  or 
interlocutory,  may  be  changed  at  any  time  before  the  final  judg- 
ment.^ A  court  may  at  any  time  before  a  final  judgment  has 
been  pronounced  change  its  ruling  on  ordinary  motions  or  on 
demurrers.  _  There  is,  as  we  have  substantially  said,  a  plenary 
right  existing  in  the  court  to  correct  its  mistakes  in  rulings 
upon  the  pleadings;  but  this  right,  comprehensive  as  it  is,  does 
not  extend  so  far  as  to  permit  a  change  in  such  rulings  after  a 
final  judgment  has  been  announced  and  entered.  The  court 
may,  of  course,  set  aside  or  vacate  the  judgment  in  the  regular 
mode,  and  after  this  is  done  correct  errors  in  the  intermediate 
rulings. 

§  192.  Nunc  pro  tunc  entries. — There  is  a  diversity  of  opin- 
ion as  to  the  source  of  the  power  to  make  nunc  pro  tunc  entries. 
Some  of  the  courts  regard  the  statute  of  Henry  VI  as  the  source 
of  the  power  of  the  courts  to  cause  entries  to  be  made  now  for 
then,^  but  we  incline  strongly  to  the  opinion  that  the  power  is 
an  inherent  one.^  It  seems  clear  to  us  that  every  court  must 
have  power  to  make  its  records  conform  to  the  truth,  and  ac- 

'  Warren  r.  Williams,  25  Mo.  App.  in  the   matter.      Ordinarily,  a  court 

22;    United  States,  etc.,  v.  Jordan,  21  would  require  notice  of  the  motion  to 

Abbott  N.  C.  330;    Brown  v.  United  be  given  to  all  parties  interested,  but 

States,  etc..  Association,  90  Ky.  — ,  S.  it  has  the  power  to  make  the  correc- 

C.  13  S.  W.  R.  1085.  tion  without  notice.     When  made,  the 

*  Makepeace  T\  Lukens,  27  Ind.  435 ;  record    so   corrected,  as   well   as  the 

Jenkins  v.  Long,  23  Ind.  460.  order  making  the  correction,  is  con- 

'  Clarion   Nat'l  Bank  v.  Breneman,  elusive  upon  any  other  court  in  which 

114  Pa.  St.  315,  S.  C.  6  Cent.  R.  478;  the  record  is  offered  in  evidence.  Balch 

Conklin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  13  N.  v.  Shaw,  7  Cush.  282.     It  appears  by 

Y.  S.  782.     See,  generally,  Chissom  v.  the  order  made  in  the  present  case 

Barbour,  100  Ind.  1 ;  Fuller  i?.  Stebbin,  that  proof  was  made  to  the  satisfac- 

49  Iowa,  376.     In  the  case  of  Crim  v.  tion  of  the  court  that  at  the  trial  of 

Kessing,  89  Cal.  478,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  the  cause,  March  20,  1882,  such  order 

R.  491,  the  court  said:    "All  courts  of  of  substitution  was  in  fact  made,  but 

record  have  the  inherent  power  to  cor-  had   not  been  entered  by  the  clerk, 

rect  their  records  so  that  they  shall  That  court  was  the  sole  judge  of  the 

conform  to  the  actual  facts,  and  speak  sufficiency   of    the   proofs  offered   in 

the  truth  of  the  case;  and  such  cor-  support  of  the  motion,  and  its  action 

rection  may  be  made  at  any  time  either  i  s  conclusive,  except  in  direct  proceed- 

upon  the  motion  of  the  court  itself,  or  ings  to  vacate  the  order.'* 
at  the  instance  of  any  party  interested 


§  192  COURTS.  187 

curately  express  it.  Courts  of  justice  can  not,  witliout  violat- 
ing the  principles  they  are  organized  to  administer  and  enforce, 
permit  their  record  to  speak  falsely,  and  if,  by  mistake  or  in- 
advertence, the  record  does  not  speak  the  truth,  the  court,  as 
an  inherent  attribute  of  its  existence,  must  possess,  as  we  be- 
lieve, the  power  to  make  it  do  so.  We  are  immediately  con- 
cerned with  the  question  of  practice,  for  we  are  speaking  of  the 
general  power  and  not  of  its  exercise.  Of  its  exercise  we  shall 
presently  speak.  As  a  judicial  record  imports  absolute  verity  it 
ought,  upon  principle,  to  be  within  the  power  of  a  court,  either 
in  term,  or  after  the  term,  to  make  true  in  fact  what  is  so  in 
theory.  But  whatever  doubts  there  may  be  as  to  the  origin, 
source  or  nature  of  the  power  there  can  be  none  as  to  its  ex- 
istence. Upon  this  subject  there  is  a  vast  wealth  of  authority, 
and  a  multitude  of  cases  might  be  collected  with  little  labor. ^ 
It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  power  to  make  nunc  pro  tunc 
orders  and  entries  does  not  embrace  the  authority  to  make  an 
entirely  new  decision  or  judgment.  The  theory  upon  which 
the  right  to  make  such  orders  or  entries  is  that  the  decision  or 
judgment  was  actually  given  by  the  court,  so  that  a  new  and 

'  Adams  v.  ReQua,  22  Fla.  250,  S.  C.  141  Pa.  266,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  592 ;  Man- 

1  Am.  St.  R.  191;  Stilhvell  v.  Carpen-  nion  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  Co.,  1.3  N.  Y. 

ter,  62  N.  Y.  639;    Shand  v.  Hanley,  S.759;Winston  t\Mitchell,93  Ala.554, 

71  N.  Y.  319;    Snead  v.   Coleman,  7  S.  C.  9  So.  R.   551;    Corn  Exchange 

Gratt.   300,   S.  C.  56  Am.    Dec.    112;  Bank  v.  Blye,  119  N.  Y.  414,  S.  C.  23 

Sanders  v.  Williams,  75  Ga.  283 ;  Will-  N.  E.   R.   805 ;    Barber  v.  Briscoe,   9 

iams  V.  Hayes,  68  Wis.  248,  S.  C.  32N.  Mont.  341,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  726;  Clev- 

W.  R.  44;  Tucker  v.  New  Brunswick,  enger  v.  Hansen,  44  Kan.  182,  S.  C.  24 

etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  44  Ch.  Div.  249;    Far-  Pac.  R.  61 ;  Brownlee  r.  Davidson,  28 

ley   V.  Cammann,  43   Mo.  App.  168;  Neb.  785,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  51 ;  Keene 

Mitchell  r.   Overman,  103  U.  S.  62;  v.  Welch,  8  Mont.  305,  S.  C.  21  Pac. 

Ellis  V.  Ewbank,  3  Scam.  190;  Reid  r.  R.  25;   Gay  v.  Hebert,  44  La.  Ann. 

:srorton,  119  HI.  118,  S.  C.  6  N.  E.  R.  301,  S.  C.  10    So.    R.  775;    Becker  v. 

424;  Chichester  r.Cande,  3  Cowen,  50,  Simons,  33  Neb.  680,  S.  C.  50  N.  W. 

S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  238;    Close  r.  Gil-  R.    1129;     Hiawatha    Tp.   v.   School- 

lespey,3  Johns. 526 ;  Brambletto.  Pick-  craft,  90  Mich.  270,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R. 

ett,  2  A.  K.  Mar.  10,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  282;  McClure  i\  Brack,  43  Minn.  805, 

350 ;  Sexton  v.  Bennett,  63  Hun,  624,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  438 ;  Brooks  r.  Steph- 

S.  C.  17  N.   Y.   Supp.  437;    Southern  ens,  100  N.  C.  297,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  81 ; 

Kansas  Co.  v.  Brown,  44  Kan.  681,  S.  Ex  parte  Henderson,  84  Ala.  36,  S.  C. 

C.  24  Pac.  R.  1100;   Jenkins  r.  Davis,  4  So.  R.  284. 


188 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§192 


independent  ruling  or  decision  can  not  be  created  now  for 
then.^  If  the  entry  expresses  the  decision,  or  judgment  rendered 
or  correctly  states  the  ruling  made,  it  can  not  be  changed  by  a 
nunc  pro  tunc  entry,  for  a  revision  or  review  of  a  judgment  or 
decision  can  not  be  secured  in  that  mode.^  The  decisions  re- 
ferred to  in  the  notes  to  this  paragraph  illustrate  the  applica- 
tion of  the  general  rvile,  and  indicate  its  extent  and  practical 
operation.  It  has  been  applied  to  cases  of  almost  every  con- 
ceivable character.  It  has  been  liberally  applied  to  uphold  deeds 
executed  under  the  order  of  courts  and  has  been  wisely  made 
the  instrument  of  supporting  titles  and  preventing  hardship 
and  injustice.^  In  the  class  of  cases  just  referred  to  the  lapse 
of  time  is  a  far  less  important  factor  than  it  is  in  ordinary 
cases,  for  the  courts  have  allowed  entries  to  be  made  confirm- 
ing deeds  after  the  lapse  of  many  years.  Recitals  omitted  by 
mistake  in  criminal  cases  may  be  supplied  by  entries  now  for 


1  In  Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co., 
53  Ark.  250,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  765,  the 
court  said:  "It  is  not  the  office  of 
an  amendment  to  create  or  originate 
something  new,  but  only  to  perfect 
that  which  is  imperfectly  done."  A 
similar  doctrine  is  asserted  in  Kirby 
V.  Bowland,  69  Ind.  290,  where  it  was 
said :  "A  court  may  record  a  fact 
nunc  pro  tunc,  that  is,  if  the  fact  exist- 
ed then  it  may  be  recorded  now,  but 
it  can  not  record  a  fact  now  which  did 
not  exist  then,  and  there  must  be 
some  record,  note,  entry,  or  minute 
of  some  kind  on  which  to  b&se  it,  con- 
necting it  with  the  case."  To  a  simi- 
lar effect  is  the  case  of  Bramlett  v. 
Pickett,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  10,  S.  C.  12 
Am.  Dec.  350.  In  the  case  of  Hick- 
man V.  City  of  Fort  Scott,  141  U.  S. 
415,  it  was  said :  "  Nothing  was  omit- 
ted from  the  record  of  the  original 
action  which  the  court  intended  to 
make  a  matter  of  record.  The  case, 
therefore,  does  not  come  within  the 
rule  that  a  court,  after  the  expiration 


of  the  term,  may,  by  an  order  mine  pro 
tunc,  amend  the  record  by  inserting 
what  had  been  omitted  by  the  act  of 
the  clerk  or  of  the  court."  In  re 
Wright,  134  U.  S.  136 ;  Fowler  v.  Trust 
Co.,  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1 ;  Galloways.  Mc- 
Keithen,  5  Ire.  12;  Hyde  v.  Curling, 
10  Mo.  359. 

''Garrison  v.  People,  6  Neb.  274; 
Moore  v.  State,  63  Ga.  165;  Adams  v. 
Higgins,  23  Fla.  13,  S.  C.  1  S.  R.  321 ; 
Hyde  v.  Curling,  10  Mo.  359;  Strange 
V.  Tyler,  95  Ind.  396;  Bole  v.  New- 
berger,  81  Ind.  274 ;  Gray  ■;;.  Brignar- 
dello,  1  Wall.  627;  Whitwell  v. 
Emory,  3  Mich.  84,  S.  C.  59  Am.  Dec. 
227;  Smith  v.  Hood,  25  Pa.  St.  218; 
In  re  Inhabitants  of  Limerick,  Peti- 
tioners, 18  Me.  183 ;  Harris  v.  Tomlin- 
son, 130  Ind.  426. 

^Inre  Harvey,  16  111.  127;  Morgan's 
Appeal,  110  Pa.  St.  271,  S.  C.  4  Atl. 
R.  506;  Camden  v.  Plain,  91  Mo.  117, 
S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R.  86;  Moody  v.  Butler, 
63  Texas,  210,  212. 


§  192  COURTS.  189 

then.'  Where  the  delay  in  entering  judgment  arises  from  the 
act  of  the  court  it  may  be  entered  as  of  the  date  on  which  it 
ought  to  have  been  phic(;d  of  record.'-^  This  rule  rests  upon  the 
fundamental  principle  that  the  act  of  a  judge  shall  prejudice 
no  man.  The  class  of  cases  under  immediate  mention  may  be 
regarded  as  in  some  measure  different  from  the  ordinary  case 
of  an  omission  to  properly  record  or  register  what  was  actually 
(lone  by  the  court.  The  courts  of  law  in  establishing  and  ap- 
plying the  doctrine  we  are  here  considering  proceed  upon  a 
principle  closely  akin  to  that  of  equity  expressed  in  the  maxim, 
that  ecpiity  regards  that  as  done  which  ought  to  have  been 
done.  The  implied,  though  not  expressed,  assumption  is  that 
the  court  ought  to  have  entered  the  judgment  of  record  at  a 
time  when  it  would  protect  the  interests  of  the  parties  and  pre- 
vent injustice.  The  principal  class  of  cases  in  which  this 
doctrine  is  applied  is  that  wherein  one  of  the  parties  to  the 
suit  dies  before  the  formal  entry  of  judgment.^  It  is  well 
settled,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  formally  entering  a  judg- 
ment now  for  then  does  not  authorize  an  entry  in  any  case  at 
a  stage  earlier  than  that  at  which  the  parties  were  rightfully 
entitled  to  judgment.  The  proceeding  must  have  so  far  pro- 
gressed as  to  entitle  the  applicant  for  a  nunc  pro  tunc  entry  to 

^Ex   parte   Beard,   41   Texas,   234;  23  N.  J.  L.  116;  Perry  v.  Wilson,  7 

Smith  V.  State,  1  Texas  App.  408;    Ex  Mass.  393. 

parte  Jones,  61  Ala.  399;    Benedict  v.  'Citizens'  Bank  v.  Brooks,  23  Fed. 

State,  44  Ohio  St.  679.  R.  21 ;  Richardson  v.  Green,  130  U.  S. 

'Gray  v.  Brignardello,  1  Wall.  627;  104;    Snow  v.  Carpenter,  54  Vt.  17; 

Mitchell   V.   Overman,  103  U.  S.   65;  Skidaway,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brooks,  77  Ga. 

.Etna  Ins.  Co.  v.  Boon,  95  U.  S.  117;  136;  Page's  Estate,  50  Cal.  40;  Witten 

TIeathcote   v.   Wing,    11    Exch.   355;  i\  Robison,  31  Mo.  App.  525;  Goddard 

Freeman  v.  Tranah,  12  Com.  B.  406;  v.  Bolster,  6  Me.  427,  S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec. 

Fishmongers  Co.  v.  Robertson,  3  Com.  320;  Tapley  ?;.  Goodsell,  122  Mass.  176; 

B.  970;    Wilson  v.  Myers,  4  Hawks,  Long  v.  Stafford,  103N.  Y.275;  Spald- 

73,  S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  510;  McLean  v.  ing  r.  Congdon,  18  Wend.  543;  Dial 

State,    8    Heisk.     22;     Campbell    v.  r.  Holter,  6  Ohio  St.  228;  Den  ».  Tom- 

Meseir,  4  Johns.  Ch.  335,  S.  C.  8  Am.  lin,  18  N.  J.  L.  14,  S.  C.  35  Am.   Dec. 

Dec.  570;     Mitchell  v.  Sclioonover,  16  525;   Currier  r.  Lowell,  16  Pick.  170; 

Or.  211,  S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  R.  282;   Jar-  Bridges  v.  Smyth,  8  Bing.  29;    Miles 

rett's  Estate,  42  Ohio  St.  199;   Wood  v.  AVilliams,   9  Q.    B.   47;   Tapley   r. 

i'.  Keyes,  6  Paige,  478;   Hess  v.  Cole,  Martin,   116  Mass.   275;   Blaisdell  v. 

Harris,  52  N.  H.  191. 


190  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  192 

a  final  judgment,  otherwise  no  such  entry  can  be  made  al- 
though steps  may  have  been  taken,  which  if  properly  pursued 
would  eventually  authorize  a  final  judgment.  In  short  the 
case  must  have  been  in  such  a  condition  as  to  make  a  final 
judgment  proper  in  due  course.^  Where  the  rights  of  innocent 
third  parties  have  intervened,  and  it  would  be  productive  of  in- 
justice to  them  to  make  a  nunc  pro  tunc  order  or  entry,  it  will 
not  be  made,  for  the  rights  of  such  persons  are  paramount  to 
those  of  the  parties  to  the  action  or  suit.^  It  is  only  where  jus- 
tice requires  it,  or,  at  least,  sanctions  it,  that  nunc  pro  tunc 
orders  or  entries  will  be  made;  and  where  equity  requires  it 
the  court  will  make  such  orders  and  prescribe  such  terms  as 
will  prevent  the  order  or  entry  from  working  injustice.^  It  is 
generally  held  that  a  nunc  pro  tunc  order  can  not  be  made  at 
the  instance  of  a  stranger  to  the  record.^  The  general  rule  is 
that  formal  pleadings  are  not  necessary,  but  that  an  informal 
motion  properly  suggesting  the  correction  or  entry  desired,  and 
the  reasons  therefor,  is  sufficient.^  There  is  some  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  an  order  now  for  then  can  be  made  after 
the  close  of  the  term  without  notice.*^     We  believe  that  notice 

1  Jennings  V.  Ashley, 5  Pike  (Ark.),  66  Ind.  488;    Conyers  v.  Mericles,  75 

128;    Hall  v.  Brown,  59   N.   H.  198;  Ind.  443;  Keepfer  v.  Force,  86  Ind. 

Hazard  v.  Durant,  14  R.  I.  25;    Per-  81;  Cassel  v.  Case,  14  Ind.  393. 
kins  i;.  Dunlavy,  61  Texas,  241.  *  Gray  v.   Robinson,   90    Ind.   527; 

*  Ninde  v.  Clark,  62  Mich.  124,  S.  C.  Sherman  i;.  Nixon,37  Ind. 153 ;  Hughes 
4  Am.  St.  R.  823 ;  Bank  of  Newburgh  v.  Hinds,  69  Ind.  93 ;  Miller  v.  Royce, 
V.  Seymour,  14  Johns.  219;  Smith  t\  60  Ind.  189;  Urbanski  v.  Manns,  87 
Hood,  25Pa.  St.218,  S.C.  64  Am.  Dec.  Ind.  585. 

692;    Miller  v.  Wolf,   63   Iowa,    2.33;  «  Berthold  u.  Fox,  21  Minn.  51 ;  King 

Galpin  v.  Fishburne,  3  McCord,  22  S.  v.  Burnham,  129  Mass.  598;    Hill  v. 

C.  15  Am.  Dec.  614.  Hoover,  5  Wis.  386;    Weed  v.  Weed, 

*  Graham  v.  Linn,  4  B.  Mon.  17,  S.  25  Conn.  337;  Alexanders.  Stewart, 
C.  39  Am.  Dec.  493;  McCormick  v.  23  Ark.  18;  Cook  v.  Wood,  24111.  295; 
Wheeler,  36  111.  114;  Hays  v.  Miller,  Means  v.  Means,  42  111.  50;  Wallis  v. 
1  Wash.  Ter.  163;  Jordan  v.  Petty,  5  Thomas,  7  Vesey,  Jr.,  292;  Rockland 
Fla.  326.  See,  generally,  Leonard  v.  Water  Co.  v.  Pillsbery,  60  Me.  425; 
Broughton,  120  Ind.  536,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Weed  v.  Weed,  25  Conn.  337 ;  Wooster 
St.  R.  347.  V.  Glover,  37  Conn.  315;  Poole  v.  Mc- 

<  Runnels  v.  Kaylor  et  ah,  95  Ind.  Leod,  1  Sm.  &  Mar.  391;  McNairy  v. 

503,  507;    Rogers  v.  Abbott,  37   Ind.  Castleberry,  6Texas,  286;  Wheeler  u. 

138;  Miller  t'.  Kolb,47Ind.220;  Lewis  Goffe,  24  Texas,  660;  Smith  v.  Myers, 

T.  Owen,  64  Ind.  446;  Angle  v.  Speer,  5  Blackf.  223 ;  Bales  v.  Brown,  57  Ind. 


§  192  COURTS.  191 

is  required,  and  we  believe  also  that  the  better  and  safer  prac- 
tice is  to  require  notice  where  the  order  is  a  material  one,  and 
is  made  aft6r  the  final  judj^jment  although  made  in  term.  It 
seems  to  us  that  when  final  judgment  is  entered  parties  have  a 
right  to  act  ui)on  the  theory  that  the  i)articular  case  is  at  an 
end,  and  that  they  are  not  under  a  duty  to  remain  in  attend- 
ance or  take  notice  of  the  proceedings.  There  is  reason  for 
holding,  as  some  of  the  courts  have  held,  that  where  the  mo- 
tion relates  to  mere  matters  of  form,  and  is  made  during  the 
term,  no  notice  is  required;^  but  this  is,  as  we  believe,  going 
quite  far  enough.  Parties  have  a  right,  within  reasonable  lim- 
its, to  rely  upon  the  record,  and  it  should  not  be  changed  without 
notice,  since  a  change  may  materially  affect  the  rights  of  parties, 
and  exert  an  important  influence  upon  their  conduct.  A  rea- 
sonable notice  is  all  that  is  required,  and,  as  the  proceedings 
are  of  a  summary  character,  a  notice  of  a  very  few  days  may 
be  regarded  as  sufficient.^  There  is  a  stubborn  conflict  in  the 
authorities  as  to  whether  parol  evidence  is  competent,  some  of 
the  cases  holding  it  competent  but  not  of  itself  sufficient,  while 
other  cases  adjudge  it  to  be  totally  inadmissible,  and  still  others 
hold  it  competent  and  sufficient. -"^   A  motion  for  a  nunc  pro  tunc 

282 ;  Burnside  v.  Ennis,  43  Ind.  411 ;  189 ;    Rugg  v.  Parker,   7   Gray,    172 

Swift  u.  Allen,  55  111.  303;    Martin  v.  Jacobs  v.  Burgwyn,  63   N.  Car.   193 

Bank,  20  Ark.  636.     Contra,  Mays  v.  Aydelotte  v.    Brittain,   29    Kan.   98 

Hassell,  4  Stew.  &  Port.  (Ala.)  222,  S.  Boyd  v.  Blaisdell,  15  Ind.  73;    In  re 

C.  24  Am.  Dec.  750;  Bentleyr. Wright,  Wight,   134  U.  S.  136;    Fay  ?'.  Wen- 

3  Ala.  607;    Allen  v.  Bradford,  3  Ala.  zell,  8  Cush.  315;    Rugg  v.  Parker,  7 

281;  Nabers  v.  Meredith,  67  Ala.  333;  Gray,  172;  Adams  r.  ReQua,  22  Fla. 

Long  V.  Stafford,  103  N.  Y.  247,  S.  C.  8  250 ;  Draughan  r.  Bank,  1  Stew.  66,  S. 

N.  E.  R.  522.   See,  generally,  Fuguar'.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  38;    Hudson  v.  Hud- 

Carriel,  1  :\riner,  170,  S.   C.   12  Am.  son,  20  Ala.  364,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec. 

Dec.  46;    Estate  of  Cook,  77  Cal.  220,  200;    Lilly  v.  Larkin,   66    Ala.   122; 

S.  C.  11   Am.  St.  R.  2G7;    Emery  v.  Shackleford  v.   Levy,   63    Miss.  125; 

Whitwell,    6    Mich.   491;    People   v.  Raymond  t\  Smith,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  65, 

McCutchen,  40  Mich.  244.  S.  C.  71  Am.    Dec.   458;    Hegeler  v. 

'  Balch  V.  Shaw,  7  Cush.  2S2.  Henckell,  27  Cal.  491 ;  Blize  r.  Castlio, 

»  Latta  V.  Griffith,  57  Ind.  329.  8  :\ro.  App.  290 ;  Atkinson  r.  Railroad, 

"  ^litchell  V.  Lincoln,  78  Ind.  531 ;  81  ]Mo.  50;  Ludlow  r.  Johnson.  3  Ohio, 

Jenkins  r.  Long,  23  Ind.  460;  Brown-  553,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  609;  Coughran 

lee  r.  Board,  101  Ind.  401;    Frink  r.  v.   Gutcheus,    18   111.  390;    Gibson  r. 

Frink,  43  N.  H.  508,  S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  Chouteau,  45  Mo.  171,  S.  C.  100  Am. 


192 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§193 


entry  has  been  held  to  be  part  of  the  principal  case,  and  that 
as  part  of  the  principal  case  it  may  be  regarded  and  considered 
on  appeal;  ^  but  this  doctrine  is  limited  in  its  scope,  and  can 
not  be  so  extended  as  to  embrace  a  distinct  and  independent 
proceeding.  It  has  been  held  that  where  the  application  is  an 
independent  one,  and  not  auxiliary  to  a  principal  case,  an  ap- 
peal will  lie  directly  from  the  decision  on  the  application  for  a 
nunc  pro  tunc  order  or  entry. ^  It  must,  as  we  suppose,  be  true 
that  th^re  are  cases  in  which  the  only  question  in  the  proceed- 
ing is  as  to  the  right  to  make  such  an  order  or  entry,  and  where 
this  is  so,  the  decision  is  an  independent  one,  and  so  far  final 
in  its  character  as  to  entitle  a  party  to  appeal  from  it. 

§  193.   Control  of  process — Interference  of  other  courts. — 

The  rule  is  that  every  court  controls  its  own  process.^  If  it 
were  otherwise  confusion  and  conflict  would  necessarily  result. 
But  while  the  rule  is  as  we  have  stated  it,  there  are  exceptions 


Dec.  366 ;  Means  v.  Means,  42  111.  50 ; 
Clark  V.  Lamb,  8  Pick.  415,  S.  C.  19 
Am.  Dec.  332 ;  Frink  v.  Frink,  43  N. 
H.  508,  S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  189;  Hol- 
lister  V.  The  Judges,  8  Ohio  St.  201,  S. 
C.  70  Am.  Dec.  ICO;  Stockdale  v. 
Johnson,  14  Iowa,  178;  Galloway  r. 
McKeithen,  5  Iredell,  12,  S.  C.  42  Am. 
Dec.  153 ;  State  v.  King,  5  Iredell,  203 ; 
Doane  v.  Glenn,  1  Col.  417 ;  Dickson 
V.  Hoff,  3  How.  (Miss.)  165;  Boon  v. 
Boon,  8  Sm.  &  Mar.  318;  vSaxton  v. 
Smith,  50  Mo.  490 ;  State  v.  Clark,  18 
Mo.  432;  Solomon  v.  Fuller,  14  Nev. 
63;  Giddings  v.  Giddings,  70  Iowa, 
486. 

'  Harris  r.  Tomlinson,  130  Ind.  426, 
429;  Hamilton  v.  Burch,  28  Ind.  2.33; 
Seigv.  Long,  72  Ind.  18;  Hannah  r. 
Dorrell,  73  Ind.  465;  Tomlinson  v. 
Harris,  130  Ind.  339. 

2  Walker  v.  State,  102  Ind.  502; 
Tomlinson  v.  Harris,  1.30  Ind.  339.  As 
to  the  practice  in  presenting  questions 
on  appeal,  see  Blizzard  v.  Blizzard,  40 
Ind.  344;  Runnels  v.  Kaylor,  95  Ind. 


503;  Jenkins  v.  Long,  23  Ind.  460; 
Corwin  v.  Thomas,  83  Ind.  110;  Ellis 
V.  Keller,  82  Ind.  524 ;  Conway  v.  Day, 
79  Ind.  318;  Chissom  v.  Barbour,  100 
Ind.  1;  Wilcox  v.  Majors,  88  Ind. 
203.  Whether  sufficient  cause  is 
shown  to  justify  an  entry  of  a  Jiiinc 
pro  tunc  order  is  held  to  be  an  issue  of 
fact  in  Brown  v.  West,  65  N.  H.  187, 
S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  233.  A  judge  in  office 
may  correct  a  clerical  error  of  his 
predecessor  by  a  nunc  pro  tunc  entry. 
Henlein  v.  Graham,  32  S.  Car.  303,  S. 
C.  10  S.  E.  R.  1012. 

3  Grant  v.  Quick,  5  Sandf.  612;  Ben- 
nett V.  LeRoy,  5  Abb.  Pr.  R.  55 ;  The 
Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  22  Ind. 
198;  Gregory  v.  Purdue,  29  Ind.  66; 
Coleman  v.  Barnes,  33  Ind.  93;  Wiley 
V.  Pavey,  61  Ind.  457;  Plunkett  v. 
Black,  117  Ind.  14,  18;  Mallory  v. 
Dauber,  83  Ky.  239.  See,  generally, 
Crawell  v.  Littlefield,  2Rich.  (S.  Car.) 
17;  Pickett  v.  Filer,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Fed. 
R.  313;  Tefft  v.  Sternberg,  40  Fed.  2; 
Gray  v.  Garnsey,  32  Me.  180. 


^  194  COURTS.  193 

to  it  as  there  are  to  almost  all  general  rules.  Equity  will  con- 
trol the  execution  of  the  process  where  e^iuitable  grounds  exist 
authorizing  equitable  interference,  and  tlie  court  issuing  the 
process  has  no  power  to  award  adequate  relief. 

§  194.  Control  of  property. — Courts  of  equity  jurisdiction 
may  control  proi)erty  directly  as  well  as  parties.  Every  court 
of  general  jurisdiction  may  control  property  indirectly  through 
its  process,  but  courts  of  equity  will  take  direct  and  im- 
mediate control  of  property  through  the  medium  of  their 
agents  or  officers.  Courts  of  law  in  some  cases  and  for 
some  purposes  assume  control  of  property  as,  for  instance, 
in  cases  where  it  is  seized  under  a  writ  of  replevin,  or  where  a 
fund  is  paid  into  court  for  distribution  to  heirs,  devisees  or 
legatees.  But  the  powers  of  courts  of  equity  are  much  broader 
and  more  comprehensive  than  those  of  the  law  courts.  In 
case  of  insolvent's  estates,  and  the  like,  the  fund  brought  into 
court  by  payment  to  an  agent  or  officer  of  the  court  is  under 
the  court's  control.  The  strongest  exercise  of  the  power  to  con- 
trol property  is  that  of  the  appointment  of  receivers,  for  in 
such  cases  the  dominion  of  the  owner  is  wrested  from  him  and 
vested  in  an  officer  or  agent  of  the  court.  Property  of  every 
description  may  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  and  kept 
there  as  long  as  the  interests  of  parties  and  creditors  require. 
Under  this  high  power  courts  have  often  seized  extensive  rail- 
way systems  and  placed  them  under  the  exclusive  control  of 
receivers,  and,  through  the  medium  of  those  officers,  operated 
railways  for  long  periods  of  time.  We  do  not  intend  to  treat 
at  length  of  the  appointment,  powers,  duties  and  liabilities  of 
receivers;  for  all  that  our  present  purpose  requires,  all,  indeed, 
that  would  be  here  appropriate,  is  a  bare  outline  of  the  leading 
principles  bearing  upon  the  general  subject  of  receivers.  A 
receiver  is  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  the  court,  and  is  appointed 
to  preserve  and  protect  the  rights  of  all  the  parties  in  interest.^ 

Merritt   v.    Lyon,    16  Wend.   421;  Waters     r.     Carroll,    9     Yerg.     102; 

Coleman  i'.Ormond,  00  Ala.  328;  Booth  Keeney  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  71  N.  Y. 

V.  Clark,  17  How.  U.  S.  321 ;  Devendorf  396,  S.  C.  27  Am.  R.  60. 
■c.   Dickinson,    21   How.  Pr.    R.   275; 

13 


194  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  194 

A  receiver  is  an  agent  of  the  court  deriving  his  powers  in  the 
particidar  instance  from  the  court  appointing  iiim  and  is  under 
a  duty  to  obey  its  orders.  He  is  not  the  agent  or  representa- 
tive of  the  parties,  but  is  an  impartial  officer  of  the  court  hold- 
ing his  position  and  exercising  his  functions  for  the  common 
good  of  all.^  A  receiver  is  sometimes  said  to  be  the  "  hand  of 
the  court,  "^  and  this  statement  aptly  denotes  his  office.  As  a 
receiver  owes  his  position  and  is  under  a  duty  to  the  tribunal 
which  appoints  him,  he  can  not  transfer  the  property  or  fund 
placed  in  his  custody  to  the  control  of  any  other  court. ^  In 
strictness  a  person  having  an  interest  in  the  property  or  fund 
in  controversy  or  in  the  result  of  the  suit  is  not  competent  to 
hold  the  position  of  a  reciver,*  but  the  matter  is  in  some  meas- 
ure one  resting  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  and  parties  may 
waive  objection  because  of  interest.^  A  leading  purpose  in  the 
appointment  of  a  receiver  is  to  protect  and  preserve  the  property 
or  fund*^  and  distribute  it  equitably  to  the  parties  entitled  to 
it.'  The  power  of  appointing  a  receiver  is  a  high  one,  and  in 
the    strictest    sense    of  the  term  an  exercise  of  extraordinary 

1  Curtis  V.  Leavitt,  1  Abb.  Pr.  274;  447;    Benneson  v.   Bill,   62   111.  408; 

Corey  «.  Long,  43  How.  Pr.  492;  Meier  Taylor  v.  Life  Association,  3  Fed.  R. 

V.  Kansas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  465;  Young  v.  Rollins,  85  N.  Car.  485, 

S.    C.    C.)    476;    Osborn  t?.    Heyer,   2  S.  C.  12  Am.  and  Eng.  Ry.  Cases,  455. 

Paige,  342 ;  Kaiser  v.  Kellar,  21  Iowa,  ^  Finance  Co.   of  Pennsylvania    v. 

95;    Hooper  v.  Urmston,  24  111.  353;  Charleston,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  436; 

Davis    V.    Duke   of     Marlborough,   2  Shannon  v.  Hanks  (Va.),  13  S.  E.  R. 

Swans,  113;    Williamson  v.  Wilson,  1  437. 

Bland  (Md.),  418;  Ellicottw.Warford,  «Battle  v.  Davis,  66  N.   Car.   252; 

4  Md.  80.  Mays    v.    Rose,    1     Freeman's    Ch. 

"  Ellicott  ?;.  Warford,  4  Md.  80.  See,  (Miss.)    703;   Chase's  Case,  1  Bland 

generally,  Runyon  v.  Farmers,   etc.,  Ch.  (Md.)  206,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  277; 

•  Bank,  3  Green.  Ch.  48C;    Van  Rens-  Taylor  v.   Philadelphia,   etc.,   Co.,   7 

selaer   v.   Emery,    9  How.   Pr.   135;  Fed.  R.  381 ;  Ellis  tj.  Boston,  etc.,  Co., 

Williamson  V.  Wilson,  1  Bland  (Md.),  107   Mass.  1;    Latham  v.   Chafee,   7 

418.  Fed.  R.  525. 

3  Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  '  New  Haven  Wire  Company  Cases, 

211,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  305.  57  Conn.  352,   S.  C.  5  Law  R.  Anno. 

♦Fripp«.  Chard,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Eng.  300.     See,  also,  Hanover,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

Law  and  Equ.  53 ;  Atkins  ?;.  Wabash,  Germania,   etc.,   Co.,   33   Hun,    539; 

etc.,   Co.,   29  Fed.  R.   161;    Meier  v.  Benneson  w.  Bill,  62  111.  408;  Bolles  i). 

Kansas  Pacific  Ry.Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.C.  Duff,  54  Barb.  215. 
C.)  476;  /rt  re  Lloyd,  L.  R.,  12  Ch.  Div. 


§194 


COURTS. 


195 


jurisdiction.  It  is,  tlierefore,  reasonable  and  just  to  require  a 
petitioner  for  a  receiver  to  make  a  very  strong  case.'  Courts 
are  reluctant  to  appoint  receivers  upon  ex  parte  petitions,  and 
notice  is  required  unless  it  clearly  appears  that  to  give  notice 
would  greatly  imperil  the  interests  of  the  parties.  We  think 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  a  receiver  will  not  be  appointed 
without  notice  unless  an  emergency  is  shown  requiring  im- 
mediate action  to  preserve  rights  of  the  parties.^  It  is  gen- 
erally held  that  a  receiver  can  not  be  appointed  until  a  suit 
has  been  commenced.^  The  order  appointing  a  receiver  is  not 
decisive  of  the  merits  of  the  case,  nor,  indeed,  of  any  other 
questions  in  it  save  the  right  to  a  receiver.*  The  court  which 
first  acquires  jurisdiction  and  appoints  a  receiver  takes  control, 
through  the  medium  of  its  agent  or  officer,  of  all  the  property 
involved  in  the  controversv.^ 


>  Blondheim  v.  Moore,  11  Md.  365 ; 
Clark  V.  Ridgely,  1  Md.  Ch.  70;  First 
National  Bank  v.  Gage,  79  111.  207; 
Hyde  Park,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kerber,  5  111. 
App.  132;  Thompson  V.  Diffendoffer, 
1  Md.  Ch.  489;  Walker  v.  House,  4 
Md.  Ch.  39;  Speights  r.  Peters,  9  Gill 
(Md.),  472;  Bill  v.  New  Albany,  etc., 
Co.,  2  Biss.  390 ;  Whitehead  r.Wooten, 
43  Miss.  523 ;  Latham  v.  Chafee,  7  Fed. 
R.  525;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United 
States,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Pa.  St.  83;  Pull- 
man V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Biss.  35. 

'Grandinr.  La  Bar,  2  N.  Dak.  206, 
S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  151 ;  Fredenheim  v. 
Rohr,  87  Va.  764,  13  S.  E.  R.  193; 
Wabash,  etc., Co.  v.  Dykeman,133Ind. 
56,  32  N.  E.  R.  823 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Carson,  133  Ind.  49,  32  N.  E.  R.  827; 
State  V.  New  Orleans,  43  La.  Ann.  829, 
S.  C.  9  S.  R.  643;  Verplanck  v.  In- 
surance Co.,  2  Paige,  438;  People  v. 
Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Barb.  344,  369; 
French  v.  Gifford,  30  Iowa,  148,  160; 
Bisson  r.  Curry,  35  Iowa,  72;  Howe  v. 
Jones,  57  Iowa,  130,  S.  C.  8  N.  W.  R. 
451 ;  Railway  Co.  v.  Jewel,  37  Ohio  St. 
649;  Briarfield,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Foster,  54 


Ala.  622;  Word  t).  Word,  90  Ala.  81, 
S.  C.  7  S.  R.  412;  Moritz  v.  Miller,  87 
Ala.  331;  S.  C.  6  S.  R.  269;  Martin  v. 
Tarver,  43  Miss.  517;  Turnbull  r.  The 
Lumber  Co.,  55  Mich.  387,  S.  C.  21  N. 
W.  R.  375;  Jones  v.  Schall,  45  Mich. 
379;  Ruffner  v.  Mairs,  33  W.  Va.  655; 
Movers  r.  Coiner,  22  Fla.  422;  Fricker 
V.  Peters,  21  Fla.  254;  Nusbaum  v. 
Stein,  12  Md.  315 ;  Johns  v.  Johns,  23 
Ga.  31 ;  Turgeau  v.  Brady,  24  La.  Ann. 
349;  Weems??.  Lathrop,  42  Texas,  207; 
Crowderr.  Moone,  52  Ala.  221 ;  People 
r.  Norton,  1  Paige,  17;  Devoe  r. 
Ithaca,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Paige,  521. 

'Gold  Hunter,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holle- 
man  (Idaho),  27  Pac.  R.  413;  Guy  v. 
Doak,  47  Kan.  236,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R. 
968;  Baker  v.  Backus,  32  111.  79; 
Merchants,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Kent,  43 
Mich.  292;  Jones  r.  Schall,  45  Mich. 
379;  Hardy  v.  McClellan,  53  Miss.  507. 

*  Ilottenstein  v.  Conrad,  9  Kan.  438 ; 
Fellows  r.  Heermans,  13  .\bb.  Pr.  N. 
S.  1 ;  McCarthy  v.  Peake,  18  How.  Pr. 
138;  In  re  Cohen,  5  Cal.  494. 

*  Sedgwick  v.  Mench.()  Blatchf.  156; 
Storm  V.  Waddell,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  491; 


196  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  195 

§  195.  Property  in  custodia  le^is, — Property  taken  under  an 
order  of  court  or  by  virtue  of  the  process  of  the  court  author- 
izing the  seizure  of  the  property  by  an  officer  is  said  to  be  in 
custodia  legis.^  Where  property  comes  into  the  hands  of  an 
officer  or  agent  of  the  court,  and  is  there  subject  to  the  control 
of  the  court,  it  is  in  the  strictest  sense  in  the  custody  of  tlie 
law.^  The  most  familiar  application  of  the  rule  is  to  cases 
where  property  or  funds  are  in  the  hands  of  receivers.  In  such 
cases  the  property  or  fund  is  in  legal  custody,  and  is  subject  to 
the  exclusive  control  of  the  tribunal  that  appointed  the  receiver 
and  authorized  him  to  take  possession  of  the  property.^  There 
is  much  conflict  in  the  cases  as  to  when  money  or  property  in 
the  hands  of  a  ministeral  officer  can  be  regarded  as  in  custodia 
legis.  It  has  been  held  that  where  property  is  replevied  and  in 
the  hands  of  the  officer  by  virtue  of  the  writ  of  replevin,  it  is 
in  the  custody  of  the  law.^  In  another  case  it  was  held  that 
where  a  delivery  bond  was  given  to  the  sheriff,  the  property 
was  not  taken  out  of  the  custody  of  the  law,  as  the  bond  did 
not  operate  to  withdraw  the  property  from  the  officer  acting  un- 
der the  process  of  the  court. ^  The  Court  of  Appeals  of  New 
York  held  in  a  comparatively  recent  case,  that  where  a  party 

Watkins  v.  Pinkney,  3  Edw.  Ch.  533;  v.  Cole,  55  Iowa,70;  Phillips  r.  Smoot, 

Spinning  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Disney  1  Mackey,  478. 

(Ohio),  33«;    Hutchinson  v.  Green,  6  *Pipher  v.  Fordyce,  88  Ind.  436,  cit- 

Fed.  R.  833;  May  v.  Printup,  59  Ga.  ing  Stout  v.  La  Follette,  64  Ind.  365; 

129.  Hagan  v.  Lucas,  10  Pet.  400;    Rhines 

1  Gilman  v.  Williams,  7  Wis.  287.  v.  Phelps,  3  Gilm.  (111.)  455;  Acker  r. 

=>  Adams  v.  Haskell,  6  Cal.  113.  White,25  Wend.614 ;  Selleck  v.Phelps, 

' /n  re  Merchants' Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss.  11  AYis.  380.     See,  generally.  Wilder 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  162;  Angel  v.  Smith,  9  v.  Bailey,  3  Mass.  289;  Jones,  etc.,  v. 

Ves.  Jr.  335 ;  Mays  v.  Rose,  Freeman  Case,  26  Kan.  299,  S.  C.  40  Am.  R.  310 ; 

(Miss.),   703;    Robinson  v.  Atlantic,  Brown  w.  Clarke,  4  How.  4;  Freeman 

etc.,  Co.,  66  Pa.  St.  160;    Skinner  v.  v.  Howe,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  450;  Turner 

Maxwell,  68  N.  Car.  400;  DeVerserw.  ??.  Fendall,  1   Cranch,    117;    Baker  v. 

Blackstone,  6  Blatch.  235;    In  re  But-  Kenworthy,  41  N.  Y.  215;  Wilder  r'. 

ler's  Estate,  13  Ir.  Ch.  R.  456.     As  to  Bailey,   3   Mass.   289;     Goodheart  v. 

when  the  title  of  a  receiver  attaches,  Bowen,  2  Bradw.  (111.  App.)  578. 

6eeRutterv.Tallis,5Sandf.(N.Y.)610 


Steele  v.  Sturgis,  5  Abb.  Pr.  R.  442 
Maynard  v.  Bond, 67  Mo. 315 ;  Artisans 


5  Wright  V.  Manns,  111  Ind.  422, 
citing  Lusk  v.  Ramsey,  3  Munf.  417; 
Doremus  v.  Walker,  8  Ala.  194;  Hagan 


Bank  v.  Treadwell,  34  Barb.  553 ;  Cook     v.  Lucas,  10  Peters,  400. 


§  195  COURTS. 


197 


deposited  money  with  the  clerk  in  lieu  of  an  appeal  bond,  that 
the  money  was  not  in  custodia  legis,  and  was  subject  to  attach- 
ment.^ There  are  many  cases  holding  that  money  or  property 
in  the  hands  of  a  sheriff,  received  by  him  under  a  writ  or  pro- 
cess of  the  court,  is  in  the  custody  of  the  law;^  but,  it  is  to  be 
observed,  where  the  money  or  property  ceases  to  be  in  tlie  pos- 
session of  the  officer  by  virtue  of  an  order  of  court,  or  under 
and  pursuant  to  its  process,  it  is  no  longer  in  the  custody  of  the 
law  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  free  from  a  writ  of"  attachment  or 
execution.'^  A  peculiar  phase  of  the  subject  is  exhibited  by  a 
case  wherein  it  was  held  that  land  seized  under  a  writ  of  at- 
tachment was  in  the  custody  of  the  law,  and  that  a  party  who 
assumed  to  take  a  mortgage  upon  it  was  bound  by  the  orders. 
It  is  well  settled  that  where  property  is  in  the  custody  of  the 
law,  it  can  not  be  reached  by  the  process  of  any  other  court 
than  that  which  has  control  of  it.''  The  decided  weight  of  au- 
thority is  that  personal  property  in  the  hands  of  the  sheriff  un- 

1  Duniop  V.  Patterson,  74  N.  Y.  145.  '  Eobertsonv.  Beall,10Md.  125 ;  Cole 
The  court  cited  and  commented  upon  v.  Wooster,  2  Conn.  203;  Pierce  v. 
the  cases  of  Chealy  v.  Brewer,  7  Charleton,  12  111.  358;  Dickison  v. 
Mass.259;  Bulkleyr.Eckert,  3Pa.  St.  Palmer,  2  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  Car.)  407; 
368;  Coppel  v.  Smith,  4  T.  R.  312;  Wheeler  r.  Smith,  11  Barb.  345;  Wat- 
Pierce  v.Charleton, 12 111.358 ;  Lightner  son  V.  Todd,  5  Mass.  271;  King  «. 
V.  Steinagel,  33  111.510;  Ross  v.  Clark,  Moore,  6  Ala.  160;  Jaquett  v.  Palmer, 
1  Dallas  (Pa.),  354;  Crane  v.  Freese,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  144;  Hearn  v.  Crutcher, 
1  Harrison  (N.  J.),  305.  4  Yerg.  461;    Tucker  v.  Atkinson,    1 

"Farrr.  Newman,4T.R.621 ;  Turner  Hump.  300;    New  Haven,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

V.  Fendall,  1  Cranch,  117;    Sharp  v.  Fowler,  28  Conn.  103.     See,  as  to  the 

Clark,  2  Mass.  91 ;    Penniman  v.  Rug-  right    of    sheriff    to     apply    money, 

gles,  6  Mass.    166.      See,   generally,  Thompson  v.   Brown,   17   Pick.  462; 

Staples    V.    Staples,    4    Greenl.    532;  Dawson  v.   Holcombe,   1   Ohio,  275; 

Farmers'  Bank  r.  Beaston,  7  Gill.  &  Muscott  v.  Woodworth,  14  How.  Pr. 

J.  421 ;  Overton  v.  Hill,  1  Murph.  (N.  R.  477;  Prentiss  r.  Bliss,  4  Vt.  513,  S. 

Car.)  47;  Blair  v.  Cantey,  2  Spear  (S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  631 ;   Winton  r.  State, 

Car.),  34;  Jones  v.  Jones,  1  Bland  Ch.  4  Ind.  321. 

(Md.)  443 ;  Burrill  r.  Letson,  2  Spear  *  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mellett,  92 

(S.  Car.),  378;    Zurcher  v.  Magee,  2  Ind.   535;    Wiswell   v.    Sampson,    14 

Ala.  253 ;  Drane  r.  :McGavock,  7  Hump.  How.  (U.  S.)  52 ;    Pipher  v.  Johnson, 

132;  Clymer  r.  Willis,  3Cal.  363;  Hill  108  Ind.  401.   The  authorities  we  have 

r.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Wis.  291;  cited  in  the  notes  to  this  paragraph  all 

Reddick  r.  Smith,3  Scam.  451 ;  Handy  sustain  this  general  doctrine. 
V.  Dobbin,  12  Johns.  220. 


198 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  195 


der  a  levy  made  upon  execution  is  i7i  custodia  legis,  and  can  not 
be  seized  upon  other  writs  of  a  similar  character.^  AVhere 
money  is  in  the  possession  of  a  master  in  chancery  subject  to 
the  control  of  the  court,  and  not  directed  to  be  paid  to  the  par- 
ties, it  is  in  the  custody  of  the  law;  but  where  there  is  an  order 
directing  payment  to  the  parties,  it  is  held  that  the  money 
ceases  to  be  held  by  the  master  as  the  officer  of  the  court,  and 
hence  is  not  in  the  custody  of  the  law.^  The  rule  that  prop- 
erty or  money  in  the  hands  of  an  officer  or  agent  of  the  court 
is  in  custodia  legis,  is  far  reaching,  and  embraces  almost  every 
conceivable  case  wherein  possession  is  held  pursuant  to  an 
order  of  court.  It  embraces  trustees,  assignees,  and  all  officers 
of  like  character  in  the  attachment  proceedings.^  Money  or 
property  in  the  hands  of  a  clerk,*  justice  of  the  peace,^  com- 
missioner, or  of  any  other  officer  or  agent  of  the  court,  and 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  court,  or  held  in  a  strictly  official 
character,  or  in  the  character  of  the  representative  or  instru- 
ment of  the  court,  is  always  regarded  as  in  custodia  legis.^    The 


^  Armistead  v.  Philpot,  1  Doug.  231 ; 
Fieldhouse  ■;;.  Croft,  4  East.  510 ;  Jones 
V.  Jones,  1  Bland  Ch.  443,  S.  C.  18  Am. 
Dec.  327 ;  Vinton  v.  Bradford,  13  Mass. 
114,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  119;  Bagley  v. 
White,  4  Pick.  395 ;  Draper  v.  Arnold, 
12  Mass.  449;  Robinson  v.  Ensign,  6 
Gray,  300;  Harbison  v.  McCartney,  1 
Grant,  172;  Oldham  v.  Scrivener,  SB. 
Monr.  579 ;  Moore  v.  Graves,  3  N.  H. 
408 ;  Burroughs  v.  Wright,  16  Vt.  619 ; 
Odiorne  v.  Colley,  2  N.  H.  66,  S.  C.  9 
Am.  Dec.  39.  Contra,  Benson  v.  Berry, 
55  Barb.  620;  Dolby  v.  Mullins,  3 
Hump.  (Tenn.)  437,  S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec. 
180. 

» Weavers.  Davis,  47  HI.  235;  Mc- 
Kenzie  v.  Noble,  13  Rich.  (S.  Car.) 
147.  See,  generally,  Daley  v.  Cun- 
ningham, 3  La.  Ann.  35;  Gaither  v. 
Ballew,  4  Jones,  488. 

'  Fee  V.  Moore,  74  Ind.  319. 

*  Alston  V.  Clay,  2  Hayw.  (N.  Car.) 
171 ;  Sibert  v.  Humphries,  4  Ind.  481 ; 


Murrell  v.  Johnson,  3  Hill.  (S.  Car.) 
12;  Bowden  v.  Schatzell,  Bailey  Equ. 
(S.  Car.)  360;  Overton  i;. Hill, 1  Murph. 
47 ;  Hunt  v.  Stevens,  3  Ired.  365 ;  Ross 
V.  Clarke,  1  Dall.  354;  Hanna  v.  Bry, 
5  La.  Ann.  651. 

5  Hooks  V.  York,  4  Ind.  636 ;  Corbyn 
V.  Bollman,  4  W.  &  S.  342.  See  Clark 
V.  Boggs,  6  Ala.  809. 

®  Croman's  Case,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 
44;  Thayerv.  Tyler,  5  Allen,94;  Bent- 
ley  V.  Shrieve,  4  Md.  Ch.  Dec.  412; 
Cockey  v.  Leister,  12  Md.  124 ;  Colby 
V.  Coates,  6  Cush.  558;  Dewing  v. 
Wentworth,  11  Cush.  499;  Olivers. 
Smith,  5  Mass.  183;  Farmers'  Bank  v. 
Beaston,  7  Gill.  &  J.  421  ;  Brooks  v. 
Cook,  8  Mass.  246;  Marvel  v.  Huston, 
2Harr.  (Del.)  349;  Thorn  t).  Wood- 
ruff, 5  Ark.  55;  Fowler  ?;.  McClelland, 
5  Ark.  188 ;  Hancock  v.  Titus,  39  Miss. 
224;  Gee  v.  Warrick,  2  Hay.  (N.  Car.) 
354;  Hartle  v.  Long,  5  Pa.  St.  491; 
Bivens  v.  Harper,  59  111.  21 ;    Conway 


§  196  COURTS.  199 

rule  we  are  considering  is  necessary  to  prevent  conflict  between 
the  courts,  and  to  enable  the  triljunal  having  in  charge  the 
fund  or  property  to  dis})ose  of  it  without  interference.  It  is, 
also,  essential  to  the  independence  of  the  court,  since  its  inde- 
pendence would  be  i>ractically  destroyed  if  another  tribunal 
could  control  or  interfere  with  its  agents  or  officers.  The  rule 
is  one  of  great  practical  value,  and  rests  upon  sound  princi- 
ples, so  that  it  is  one  to  be  enlarged  in  its  operation  rather  than 
restricted. 

§  19G.  Ministers  of  the  court. — According  to  Francis  Bacon 
the  officers  who  arc  appointed  to  assist  judges  and  chancellors 
in  their  judicial  duties  are  ''ministers  of  the  court."  They 
are  not  judges  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term,  although  they  ex- 
ercise duties  of  a  judicial  nature.  They  do  not  possess  the 
power  of  ultimate  decision,  for  that  power  must  reside  in  the 
duly  appointed  or  duly  elected  judge  or  chancellor.  Judicial 
duties  can  not  be  delegated,  and  the  power  of  giving  the  ulti- 
mate decision  or  judgment  must  reside  in  the  officers  compos- 
ing the  courts  of  justice,  since  only  courts  can  speak  the  final 
and  authoritative  words  of  the  law  which  determine  the  rights 
of  litigants.  Proceedings  before  ministers  of  the  court,  such 
as  masters  in  chancery  and  master  commissioners,  are  ancillary, 
and  not  final,  since  the  final  decision  must  be  pronounced  by 
the  court,  and  not  by  its  officers  or  assistants.  Officers  and  as- 
sistants may  convey  information  to  the  court  either  upon  mat- 
ters of  fact  or  of  law,  but  even  this  they  can  not  do  in  matters 
which  require  the  direct  investigation  and  decision  of  the  duly 

V.  Arniington,  11  R.  I.  116;    Wiiu'liell  137;  Carney  r.  Dewing,  10  Cush.  498; 

V.  Allen,   1  Conn.  385;    Beckvvith  v.  Massachusetts,  etc..  Bank  t'.  Bullock, 

Baxter,   3  N.   H.  67;    Woodward  v.  120  Mass.  86 ;    Schlueter  r.  Raymond, 

Woodward,    4    Halst.     (N.   J.)    115;  7  Neb.  281 ;  Todd  r.  Buckman]  11  Me. 

Gassett  V.  Grout,  4  Met.  486 ;  Davis  r.  41;  Leeds  v.   Sayward,  6   N.   H.   83; 

Drew,   6   N.    H.    399;     Vierheller   r.  Copeland  c.  Weld,  8  Me.  411;  Strat- 

Brutto,  6  111.  App.  95.    See,  generally,  ton   v.  Ilam,  8  Ind.  84;    Godbold  r. 

Mann  r.  Kelsey.  71  Texas,  609,  S.  C.  Bass,  12  Rich.  (S.  Car.)  202;   Hansen 

12  S.  W.  R.  43;  Parler  v.  Johnson,  81  r.  Butler,  48  Me.  81 ;  Shewell  v.  Keen, 

Ga.  254;    McPherson  v.  Snowdeu,  19  2  Whart.  (Pa.)  332;    Perry  r.  Thorn- 

Md.   197;    Groome  v.  Lewis,  23   Md.  ton,  7  R.  I.  15. 


200  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  196 

appointed  or  elected  judge.  As  the  judiciary  is  a  separate  and 
independent  department  of  the  government,  vested  with  an 
element  of  sovereign  power,  it  is  not,  in  our  opinion,  compe- 
tent for  any  other  department  to  determine  who  its  ministers 
shall  be.  No  court  can  be  independent  that  is  compelled  to 
accept  as  its  ministers  persons  appointed  by  some  other  depart- 
ment. The  right  to  choose  its  own  assistants  is  essential  to 
the  independence  of  the  judiciary,  and  the  denial  of  this  right 
involves  the  assertion  that  other  governmental  departments  are 
the  rulers  of  the  judiciary  in  its  own  domain.  We  are  aware 
that  there  is  some  diversity  of  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  the 
right  of  a  court  to  appoint  its  ministers,  but  we  can  not  avoid 
the  conclusion  that  to  yield  to  other  departments  the  right  to 
choose  the  ministers  of  the  courts  is  a  complete  and  indefen- 
sible surrender  of  judicial  independence.  Among  the  minis- 
ters of  the  court  masters  in  chancery  are  the  oldest.  Masters 
in  chancery  were  appointed  by  the  English  courts  of  equity  in 
the  early  years  of  their  existence.  It  was  comparatively  a  short 
time  after  the  chancellors  of  England  established  the  court  of 
chancery  that  masters  in  chancery  were  appointed  to  assist  the 
court.  A  master  in  chancery  or  a  master  commissioner  should 
be  free  from  bias  or  prejudice,  and  an  interest  in  the  suit  or  ac- 
tion will  disqualify  a  person  from  assuming  the  functions  of  a 
master.^  Ministers  of  court  to  whom  matters  are  referred  are 
controlled  by  the  order  of  the  court  in  the  particular  case,^  and 
where  the  order  requires  a  report  of  the  evidence,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  master  to  report  it;  but  where  the  order  does  not  require 
a  report  of  the  evidence,  it  is,  as  a  general  rule,  sufficient  to 
report  the  facts.  Where  there  is  a  general  order  referring  a 
matter  to  a  master,  the  facts  should  be  reported  so  that  the 

>  Brown  v.  Byrne,  Walker's  Ch.  453.  C.)  538 ;  Blauvelt  v.  Ackerman,  20  N. 

An  officer  of  the  court  prohibited  by  J.  Eq.  141 ;    Hays  v.  Hays,  64  N.  Car. 

statute  or  by  rule  of  the  court  is  in-  59.     See,  generally,    Emerson    v.  At- 

competent  to  act  as  a  master.     Fisher  water,  12  Mich.  314 ;  Howe  v.  Russell, 

V.  Hayes,  22  Blatchf.  505.  36  Me.  115 ;  Mason  v.  New  York,  etc.. 


"Simmons  v.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  147 
McNaught  V.  McAllister,  93  Ind.  114 
Updike  V.  Doyle,   7   R.  T.   446,  458 


Co.,  52  Me.  82;  Cary  t\  Herrin,  62 
Me.  16 ;  Arnold  v.  Slaughter,  36  W.Va. 
589,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  250;  Lee  v.  State, 


Lonsdale  v.  Moies,  2  Cliff.   (U.  S.  C.     88  Ind.  256. 


§   11)7  COURTS.  201 

court  may  give  the  ultimate  decision  upon  them.'  The  sub- 
stantive facts  should  be  stated,  and  not  simply  the  master's  de- 
ductions from  them,  inasmuch  as  the  judgment  uf  the  court 
must  rest  upon  the  facts,  and  not  upon  the  mere  conclusions 
of  the  master.^  The  master's  duty,  in  the  absence  of  specific 
directions  in  the  order,  is  to  ascertain  and  state  the  controlling 
matters  of  fact  and  of  law,  for  tlio  information  of  the  court. '^ 
The  report  of  a  master  is  regarded  in  many  respects  as  the  ver- 
dict of  a  jury,  and  rules  applicable  to  verdicts  are  applied  to  re- 
ports of  masters.*  Objections  to  references  to  masters  are  re- 
quired to  be  promptly  made,  and  if  the  disqualification  of  the 
person  named  as  a  master  is  known  the  objection  must  be  op- 
portunely interposed.^  In  order  to  make  objections  available 
on  appeal,  they  must  be  appropriately  presented  to  the  trial 
court;  thus,  for  instance,  an  objection  that  no  order  of  refer- 
ence was  made  will  not  avail  on  appeal  unless  it  appears  that 
it  was  presented  to  the  trial  court  at  the  proper  time.^ 

§  197.    Officers  of  court. — Courts  are  usually  provided  with 
ministerial  officers,  and  if  all  courts  were  presided  over  by  of- 

1  Skinner  v.  Conant,  2  Vt.  453,  S.  C.  238;  Stimson  v.  Green,  13  Allen,  326; 

21  Am.  Dec.  554.     See   Phillip's  Ap-  Pierce  v.  Faunce,  53  Me.  351 ;  State  v. 

peal,  68  Pa.  St.  130;    Clark's  Appeal,  Melntyre,  53  Me.  214. 

62  Pa.  St. 447;  Backus'  Appeal, 58  Pa.  *Green  v.  Richmond,  155  Mass.  188, 

St.  186,  192;  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  125  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  770;  Starke  v.  Rich- 

U.  S.  136;    Hurdle  r.  Leath,  63  N.  C.  mond,  155  Mass.  188,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 

366.     See,  generally,  Gage  v.  Arndt,  770;    Baird  v.  Mayor,  74  N.  Y.  382; 

121111.491;  Field  i'.ITolland,6Cranch.  Trenholm  v.  Morgan,  28  S.  Car.  268, 

8;    McAlister  v.  Olmstead,  1  Hump.  S.  C.  5  S.  E.  R.  721;    Grant  >\  Reese, 

(Tenn.)  210.  82  N.  Car.  72;    Harris  v.  Schaffer,  92 

»  De  Treville  v.  Ellis,  1  Bailey  Equ.  N.  C.  30.   See,  generally,  Allis  r.  Day, 

(S.  Car.)  35,  S.  C.  21   Am.  Dec.  518;  14  Minn.  516;    Strong  v.  Willey,  104 

Clark's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  447;  Parker  U.  S.  512;    Rhodes  v.  Russell,  32  S. 

V.  Nickerson,  137  Mass.  487;    Nims  v.  Car.  585,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  828;  Houser 

Nims,  20  Fla.  204;  Frazier  r.  Swain,  v.  Roth,  37  Ind.  89. 

36N.  J.Eq.  156.  See, generally, Trigg r.  ^In  Spencer  v.  Levering.  8   Minn. 

Trigg    (Texas),    18    S.    W.    R.    313;  461,  467,  the  court  said:     "  The  other 

Evans  v.  Evans,  2  Cold.  (Tenn.)   143;  point  made  by  the  plaintiff  in  error, 

Herrick  v.  Belknap,  27  Vt.  673.  to  wit,  that  the  record  does  not  show 

'Furrer  v.  Ferris,  145  U.  S.  132.  an  order  referring  the  cause  to  a  ref- 

*  Izard  r.  Bodine,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  309;  eree  for  trial,  should  have  been  urged 

Sproull's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  137.     See,  in  the  court  below,  it  can  not  be  made 

generally, White  v.  Hampton,  10  Iowa,  here  for  the  first  time." 


202  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  197 

ficers  who  are,  in  strictness,  judges,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
conceive  of  a  court  having  no  ministerial  officers,  since,  under 
our  system  of  government,  judges  can  not  perform  purely  min- 
isterial duties.  If  the  theory  of  our  governmental  system  were 
adhered  to  with  rigid  strictness,  the  officers  invested  with  ju- 
dicial functions  could  not  perform  ministerial  or  executive 
duties.  But  long  usage  has  given  an  exposition  to  our  consti- 
tutions which  can  not  be  disregarded,  for  contemporaneous  ex- 
position has,  in  many  instances,  the  force  of  positive  law.-^  This 
long  continued  and  uniform  usage  has  given  to  such  officers  as 
county  commissioners,  members  of  the  board  of  supervisors, 
and  the  like,  the  character  of  judges  in  a  qualified  and  limited 
degree.  In  nearly  all,  if  not  in  all,  of  the  States,  boards  of 
supervisors,  boards  of  county  commissioners,  and  the  like,  have 
been  recognized  as  courts.  But,  while  this  is  true,  it  is  also 
true  that  such  officers  are  charged  with  purely  ministerial  du- 
ties, and  invested  with  functions  belonging  only  to  ministerial 
or  administrative  offices.  Such  officers  have  a  dual  character, 
for,  in  one  capacity  they  act  ministerially  and  in  another  ju- 
dicially.    They  have,  indeed,  many  characters.^     Courts  of  a 

*  Rogers  v.  Goodwin,  2  Mass.  475 ;  735 ;    West  v.  Burke,    60    Texas,  51 ; 

Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  (111.)  221;  Douglass  v.  County  of  Baker,  23  Fla. 

Ogden  V.  Saunders,   12    Wheat.  213,  419,    S.    C.   2  So.  E.  776;    Brewer  v. 

290;    Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  Railroad   Co.,  113  Mass.  52;  Argo  w. 

162;    State  ■?;.  Parkinson,  5   Nev.  15;  Barthand,  80  Ind.  63 ;  Town  of  Cicero 

Pike  V.  Megoun,  44  Mo.  491 ;    People  v.  Williamson,  91  Ind.  541 ;  Blanchard 

r.  Board,  100111.  495;  State  v.  French,  ??.  Bissell,  11  Ohio  St.  96;    LaPointe 

2Pinn.  (Wis.)  181 ;  Martin  v.  Hunter,  Supervisors  v.  O'Malley,  47  Wis.  332 

1  Wheat.  304;    Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  People  v.   Carpenter,   24    N.   Y.  86 

Wheat.  264;  Stuart  i?.  Laird,  1  Cranch.  People  v.  Supervisors,  65  N.  Y.  222 

299;  Board,  etc.,  v.  Bunting,  111  Ind.  People  v.  Ilagadorn,  104  N.  Y.  616 

143;  Weaver  v.  Ternplin,  113  Ind.  298,  Board  v.  Montgomery,  106  Ind.  517 

301 ;  Hovey  v.  State,  119  Ind.  386.  Weir  v.  State,  96  Ind.  311.     The  cases 

'  State  V.  Ormsby  County,  7  Nev.  to  which  we  have  referred,  and  a 
392;  Andrews  r.  Pratt,  44  Cal.  309;  multitude  more  which  might  easily  be 
Supervisors  v.  South  Ottawa,  12  111.  added,  show  that  county  boards  act  in 
480;  State  t'.  Saline  County,  18  Neb.  legislative,  judicial  and  ministerial  ca- 
422;  Jackson  v.  Hartwell,  8  Johns.  pacities,andyetwhenthey  actjudicial- 
(N.Y.)422;  Miller  ■?;.  Supervisors,  25  ly,thatis,ascourts,their  judgments  can 
Cal.  93;  People  v.  Schenectady,  35  not  be  collaterally  impeached,  and  that 
Barb.  408;  Sterling  v.  Parish,  26  La.  they  will  sustain  a  plea  of  former  ad- 
Ann.  59;  Hawkins  V.  Carroll,  50  Miss,  judications.     Such   tribunals   are   pe- 


§  198  COURTS  203 

higher  rank  tlian  boards  of  county  commissioners,  county  su- 
pervisors, or  the  like,  could  not  perform  their  duties  nor  ac- 
complish the  object  for  which  they  were  created  without  the  aid 
of  ministerial  officers,  for  without  such  officers  they  would  be 
unable  to  carry  into  effect  their  judgments  or  decrees,  or  to 
serve  or  execute  their  process.  Even  such  subordinate  courts 
as  those  composed  of  county  supervisors,  county  commission- 
ers, or  the  like,  are  aided  and  served  by  officers  whose  duties 
are  purely  ministerial.  It  is  true  of  courts  generally,  that  they 
are  in  part  composed  of  ministerial  officers,  but  the  important 
part  of  all  courts  is  the  judicial  officer,  for  without  that  ofiicer 
the  court  could  not  exist. ^ 

§  198.  Officers  of  court — Power  to  appoint. — It  is  undouljt- 
edly  true  that  the  power  to  appoint  to  office  is  in  its -nature  an 
executive  power, ^  but  it  is  by  no  means  purely  executive.  It 
can  not  be  doubted  that  the  legislature  may  appoint  such  offi- 
cers as  are  required  to  enable  it  to  perform  its  duties  and  trans- 
act its  business,  as,  for  instance,  secretaries,  clerks,  sergeants- 
at-arms,  and  the  like,  although  the  general  appointing  power 
may  be  lodged  in  the  chief  executive  by  the  constitution  of  the 
State. ^     This  is  so,  for  the  reason  that  each  department  of  the 

culiar  organizations,  and  possess  man-  Marsh.  401 ;  State  v.  Barbour,  53  Conn, 

ifold  and  diverse  powers,  such  as  could  76 ;  Ackley's  Case,  4  Abbott's  Pr.  R.  35. 

not  be  combined  in  anj' other  tribu-  'Unless  the  constitution  does  invest 

nals.  the  chief  executive  of  the  State  with 

'  Many  of  the  subordinate  officers  the  appointing  power  or  place  it  else- 
of  courts  are  known  by  different  titles  where,  the  legislature  may,  according 
in  different  jurisdictions,  but  the  titles  to  the  overwhelming  weight  of  author- 
"  sheriff"  and  "constable"  are  al-  ity,  exercise  it.  Hovey  t'.  Carson,  119 
most  universally  used  in  England  and  Ind.  395 ;  Collins  c.  State,  8  Ind.  344 ; 
in  the  United  States.  The  officers  State  v.  Harrison,  113  Ind.  434;Ho- 
usually  forminga  part  of  the  court  are  vey  V.  Riley,  119  Ind.  380;  People  r. 
those  named  and  clerks,  prothonota-  Langdon,  8Cal.  1 ;  People  r.  Hurlbut, 
ries,  or  registrars,  bailiffs,  criers  and  24  Mich.  44;  Field  v.  People,  2  Scam, 
tipstaves,  .\ttorneys,  counselors,  so-  79;  State  r.  Irwin,  5  Nev.  Ill ;  Stater, 
licitors  and  barristers  are  officers  of  Swift,  11  Nev.  128;  Biggs  v.  Mc- 
the  court,  but  the  relation  they  sus-  Bride,  17  Ore.  G40,  S.  C.  21  Pac. 
tain  to  the  court  is  quite  different  from  R.  878;  Mayor  r.  State,  15  Md.  376; 
that  of  the  officers  we  have  named.  State  v.  Lusk,  18   Mo.  333;    Bridges 

*Taylor  v.  Commonwealtli,  3  J.  J.  v.  Shallcross,  6  W.  Va.  562;  Walker 


204  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  199 

government  must,  in  order  to  maintain  its  indopenaence  and 
discharge  its  duties,  have  the  right  to  choose  its  own  immediate 
ministers  and  agents.  The  principle  applies  to  the  judicial  as 
well  as  to  the  other  departments  of  the  government.  It  seems 
clear  to  us  that  the  court  may  appoint  its  own  immediate  min- 
isters or  agents.  So  it  has  been  held,^  and  so  it  must  be  held 
or  the  judiciary  will  cease  to  be  independent.  We  do  not  mean 
to  be  understood  as  asserting  that  courts  may,  as  of  inherent 
right,  appoint  the  ministerial  officers  that  register  their  rulings 
and  decisions,  or  those  that  execute  their  process  and  judgments; 
what  we  mean  is  that  the  courts  may  appoint  such  agents  or 
ministers  as  are  immediately  connected  with  the  conduct  of  the 
business  of  the  court,  and  act  directly  under  the  control  and 
supervision  of  the  judge.  These  agents  or  ministers  of  the 
court  are  in  a  sense  officers,  but  they  are  not  officers  in  the  same 
sense  that  sheriffs  and  clerks  are;  they  are,  however,  officers  in 
a  restricted  sense,  as  are  attorneys,  counselors  and  solicitors. 

§  199.  Officers  of  court — Control  of. — A  court  has  control  of 
its  officers  ^  in  so  far  as  their  duties  relate  to  the  business  of  the 
court  and  are  directly  therewitli  connected;^  but  a  court  can 
not,  of  its  own  motion,  control  the  action  of  officers  in  the 
performance  of  independent  duties  prescribed  bylaw.  It  may, 
of  course,  compel  a  proper  discharge  of  any  duty  when  a  proper 
suit  or  action  calls  into  exercise  the  power  of  the  court,  and 
requires  a  judgment  or  decree  against  the  officer.  Where  the 
acts  of  the  officer  are  such  as  the  court  has  a  right  of  its  own 

V.  City  of  Cincinnati,  21  Ohio  St.  14;  5   Mo.  App.  427.      But  see   State  v. 

State  V.    Harmon,   31   Ohio   St.   250;  Smith,  82  Mo.  51. 

Baker  v.  Kirk,  33  Ind.  517 ;  Webster's  ^  We  are  not  referring  to  officers  ap- 

Speech  on   the  Presidential   Protest,  pointed  by  the  court  and  subject  to 

contra,  State  v.    Hyde,    121   Ind.   20.  removal  at  the  pleasure  of  the  court, 

The  case  of  States.  Kennon,  7  Ohio  St.  but  of  officers  elected  or  appointed  to 

546,  is  founded  upon  a  constitutional  offices  established  by  law  by  the  peo- 

provision   expressly    prohibiting    the  pie  or  by  other  officers  than  the  judge 

legislature  from  exercising    the   ap-  or  judges,  such  officers,  for  instance, 

pointing  power.  as  sheriff's  clerk,  registrars   or  pro- 

'  In  re  Janitor,  35  Wis.  410;  State  v.  thonotaries. 

Smith,15Mo.  App.  412;  State  V.Smith,  'King  of  Spain  v.  Oliver,  2  Wash. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  429. 


^  200  COURTS.  206 

volition  to  control,  it  may  deal  with  the  officer  in  a  summary 
mode,  and  need  not  issue  any  formal  writ  or  process.^ 

§200.    Control   of  court-houses   and   appurtenances.  —  As 

courts  are  invested  with  an  element  of  sovereignty,  and  are 
parts  of  an  independent  and  distinct  department  of  govern- 
ment, they  have,  as  of  inherent  right,  powers  of  considerable 
extent  over  court-houses  and  buildings  in  which  the  business 
of  the  court  is  transacted.  It  is  difficult,  in  the  present  state  of 
•the  authorities,  to  accurately  determine  the  extent  of  this  au- 
thority. We  think  it  safe  to  affirm  that  where  it  is  necessary 
to  enable  the  court  to  transact  its  business  it  may,  within  lim- 
its, make  provision  for  rooms  in  which  to  hold  its  sessions,  and 
may  provide  for  their  maintenance  in  proper  repair.  It  seems 
to  us,  although  we  advance  an  opinion  with  some  hesitation, 
that,  as  it  is  the  duty  of  courts  to  administer  justice,  they 
must  have  some  power  to  make  provision  for  securing  and 
keeping  in  proper  condition  places  where  the  terms  or  sessions 
can  be  held.  It  can  hardly  be  possible  that  courts  must  cease 
business  and  leave  litigants  utterly  without  relief  because  of 
the  lack  of  a  suitable  place  in  which  to  hold  their  terms  or 
sessions.  This  power  can  not  probably  go  so  far  as  to  enable 
courts  to  order  the  construction  of  an  entirely  new,  permanent 
and  costly  structure;  but  we  think  it  does  go  far  enough  to 
enable  them  to  make  provision  for  procuring  temporary  quarters 
where  there  is  a  necessity  for  so  doing. ^ 

§  201.  Allowances  out  of  public  funds. — Courts  may,  in 
many  cases,  make  allowances,  payable  out  of  the  public  treas- 
ury. They  have  no  general  authority  to  make  such  allowances, 
for  their  authority  is  limited  and  restricted.  They  may  make 
allowance  to  pay  counsel  in  prosecuting  the  pleas  of  the  State 

'  Wright  r.  Huron  County  Clerk,  48  ever,    Los   Angeles   Co.     r.    Superior 

Mich.  642;  Moore  v.  Muse,  47  Texas,  Court,  93  Cal.  380,  S.  C.  28  Pac.   R. 

210.  10()2.      See,   generally,    Hudspeth    v. 

"  Board  y.Thompson,7Ind.2()o;  Nash  State,  55  Ark.  323,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R. 

t".  State,  7  Ind.  ()G(>;  Commissioners  r.  183. 
Hall,   7  Watts  (Pa.),  290.     See,  how- 


206  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  202 

as  well  as  to  compensate  counsel  for  defending  those  who  de- 
fend forma  pauperis.^  Where  there  is  a  principal  power,  such 
as  exists  in  cases  of  the  classes  to  which  we  have  referred,  there 
is,  also,  the  incidental  authority  necessary  to  the  proper  execu- 
tion of  the  principal  power.  The  general  principle  we  have 
stated  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  there  are  many  instances 
in  which  a  court  may  make  allowances  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
public  funds,  but  the  power  is  necessarily  limited  and  circum- 
scribed, inasmuch  as  the  general  power  to  make  appropriations 
of  public  funds  resides  in  other  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

§202.  Ao:reements  and  stipulations  of  parties. — Agree- 
ments and  stipulations  of  parties  made  and  brought  to  the  no- 
tice of  the  court,  as  its  rules  require,  often  exert  an  important 
influence  upon  the  procedure  in  a  cause  as  well  as  upon  the 
substantive  rights  of  the  parties.  A  stipulation  can  not,  of 
course,  confer  jurisdiction  upon  a  tribunal,  nor  can  it  author- 
ize a  judge  to  perform  an  official  act  at  a  time  or  place  forbid- 
den by  law.  Counsel  may  make  agreements  respecting  matters 
of  procedure  and  similar  matters  that  will  bind  their  clients.^ 
As  a  general  rule,  attorneys  can  not  sell  or  assign  the  claims  of 
their  clients,  since  such  acts  are  beyond  the  scope  of  their  au- 
thority.'"^  Where  there  is  time  and  opportunity  to  consult  the 
client  there  is  no  authority  to  compromise  a  claim ;^    but  where 

1  Board  ?>.  Wood,  35  Ind.  70;  Gor-  *  Millerv.  Edmonston,8  Blackf.291 ; 
don  V.  Board,  44  Ind.  475;  Board  v.  Jones  v.  Ransom,  3  Ind.  327;  Wake- 
Courtney,  105  Ind.  311;  State  v.  Mil-  man  v.  Jones,  1  Ind.  517;  McCormick 
ler,  107  ind.  39;  Stout  u.  State,  90  Ind.  v.  Walter  A.  Wood  Co.,  72  Ind.  518; 
1 ;  State  ??. Wallace,  41  Ind.  445 ;  Keyes  Repp  v.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App.  167,  S.  C. 
??.  State,  122  Ind.  527 ;  Commissioners  29  N.  E.  R.  441;  Martin  v.  Capital 
V.  Hall,  7  Watts  (Pa.),  290.  Ins.    Co.    (Iowa),   52  N.  W.    R.   534; 

^  Devenbaugh  v.  Nifer,  3  Ind.  App.  Willard    v.    A.    Siegel    Gas  Co.,    47 

379,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  923;  Hudson  v.  Mo.    App.    1.     See,    generally,    Watt 

Allison,   54   Ind.    215;    Thompson  v.  v.  Brookover,  35  W.  Va.  323,  S.  C  29 

Pershing,  86   Ind.   303;    Garrigan  v.  Am.  St.  R.  811;  Holker  ?;.  Parker,  7 

Dickey,  1  Ind.  App.  421;  Bp  Heath's  Cranch,  436;  Preston  v.  Hill,  50  Cal. 

Will,  83  Iowa,  215,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  43,  S.  C.  19  Am.  R.  647;  De  Louis  v. 

1037.  Meek,  2  G.  Greene,  55,  S.  C.  50  Am. 

'Lewis  V.  Blue,  110  N.  Car.  420,  S.  Dec.  491 ;  Grangers.  Batchelder,  54  Vt. 

C.  15  S.  E.  R.  196.  24S,  S.  C.  41    Am.    R.   846;  Town  of 


§  202  COURTS.  207 

there  is  an  emergency,  requiring  prompt  action,  and  the  in- 
terests of  the  client  would  be  sacrificed  if  action  were  delayed, 
the  attorney  may  rightfully  compromise  the  claim. ^  A  stipula- 
tion that  a  decision  in  one  of  a  series  of  cases  shall  govern 
others  of  the  same  series  is  valid  and  effective.^  It  is  compe- 
tent to  agree  upon  the  facts  in  a  case,  and  such  an  agreement 
is  sufficient  to  dispense  with  evidence  where  it  covers  the  mat- 
ters in  issue. "^  Parties  may  make  an  agreement  for  the  pur- 
poses of  a  trial,  and  where  an  agreement  or  stipulation  is  lim- 
ited to  a  particular  trial,  it  is  not  effective  in  any  other.  No- 
tices, pleadings,  and  the  like,  may  be  dispensed  with  or  waived 
by  a  stipulation,  and  so  may  almost  any  matter  of  procedure 
except  such  as  affect  the  jurisdiction  of  the  subject. 

Whitehall  v.  Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105,  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  7,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  716; 

S.  C.  45  Am.  R.  361.  Townsend  v.  Masterton,  15  N.  Y.  587. 

'  Whipple  V.  Whitman,  13  R.  I.  512,  '  Witz  r.  Dale,  129  Ind.  120,  S.  C.  27 
S.  C.  43  Am.  R.42;  Granger  v.  Batch-  N.  E.  R.  498;  Zellar  v.  City  of  Craw- 
elder,  54  Vt.  248,  S.  C.  41  Am.  R.  846;  fordsville,  90  Ind.  262;  Pennsylvania 
Kirk's  Appeal,  87  Pa.  St.  243,  S.  0.  30  Co.  v.  Niblack,  99  Ind.  149;  Citizens' 
Am.  R.  357;  Holker  v.  Parker,  7  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harris,  108  Ind.  392,  S.  C. 
Cranch,  436;  Union  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.  9  N.  E.  R.  299;  Western  Union  Tel. 
V.  Buchanan,  100  Ind.  63,  78.  Co.  v.  Frank,  85  Ind.  480;  Slessman 

'  Riggs  V.  Commercial,    etc.,    Ins.  v.  Crozier,  80  Ind.  487. 


CHAPTER  V. 


JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS. 


Disqualification  because  of  re- 
lationship. 

Various  statutory  disqualifica- 
tions. 

Necessity  may  compel  disquali- 
fied judge  to  act. 

Change  of  judge. 

Power  to  appoint  special 
j  udges — Generally . 

Special  judges. 

Who  appoints  judges  pro  tem- 
pore. 

Determination  of  necessity  of 
appointing  special  judge. 

Mode  of  appointing  special 
judges. 

Procedure  respecting  appoint- 
ment of  special  judges. 

Objections  to  special  judges. 

Presumption  of  regularity  in 
appointment. 

Authority  of  special  judges. 

§  203.  Definition. — The  terms  ''court"  and  "judge"  are 
often  used  interchangeably,  but  the  words  are  not  synonymous. 
A  judge  is  a  judicial  officer  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term/ 
and  he  is  an  indispensable  part  of  the  court,  but,  in  strictness, 
he  is  not  the  court.     A  judge  may  perform  judicial  acts  in  va- 


203. 

Definition. 

§216. 

204. 

Duties  of  a  judge — Generally. 

205. 

Judicial  duties  and  functions. 

217. 

206. 

Only  judicial  duties  can  be  im- 

posed on  judges. 

218. 

207. 

Duties  of  a  judge  can  not  be 

delegated. 

219. 

208. 

De  facto  judges — Generally. 

220. 

209. 

What  constitutes  a  judge  de 

facto. 

221. 

210. 

No  man  shall  be  a  judge  in  his 
own  cause. 

222. 

211. 

Disqualification  of  judges  by 
interest. 

223. 

212. 

The  degree  of  interest  that  dis- 
qualifies. 

224. 

213. 

Collateral  attacks  on  the  right 
of  a  judge  to  hear  and  decide 

225. 

^ 

a  case. 

226. 

214. 

Questioning  on  appeal  the 
right  of  a  judge  to  act. 

227. 

215. 

Attack  by  appeal  not  collateral. 

228. 

^  "You  are  to  know  moreover,  that 
the  judge  so  created  is  not  to  make 
any  solemn  entertainment,  or  be  at 
any  extraordinary  expense  upon  his 
accession  to  his  office  and  dignity,  be- 
cause it  is  no  degree  in  law,  but  only 
an  ofiice  and  a  branch  of  magistracy." 
— Sir  John  Fortescue.  It  is  also  said 
by  Fortescue  that  "the  judges  do  not 
sit  in  the  King's  courts  above  three 

(208) 


hours  in  the  day,  that  is  from  eight  in 
the  morning  till  eleven,"  and  he  also 
says  that  "the  judges  when  they  have 
taken  their  refreshment  spend  the 
rest  of  the  day  in  the  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  other  innocent 
amusements  at  their  pleasure;  it 
seems  rather  a  life  of  contemplation 
than  of  much  action." 


§  204  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  209 

cation,  but  a  court,  strictly  speaking,  can  act  only  in  term  and 
at  authorized  times  and  places.  It  is  said  that  a  judge  is  a 
public  officer  appointed  to  decide  litigated  questions  according 
to  law,^  but  this  definition  is  too  narrow,  for  a  judge's  duty  is 
not  confined  to  giving  decisions,  although  that  is  the  great  and 
important  part  of  his  duty.  A  judge  controls  the  business  of 
a  court  or  courts,  orders  that  acts  be  done  or  not  done  in  causes 
or  matters  pending  in  court,  appoints  and  removes  ministers 
of  the  court,  such  as  master  commissioners,  referees,  receivers 
and  the  like,  and  renders  judgments  and  decrees.  The  term 
* 'court"  means  more  than  the  term  "judge"  for  the  judge 
alone  does  not  constitute  the  court  although  there  can  be  no 
court  without  the  judicial  presence.'^  A  statute  employing  the 
term  "judge"  usually  means  by  that  term  the  person  who  fills 
the  office  of  judge,  but  the  term  sometimes  refers  to  the  court 
and  not  to  the  individual  who  fills  the  office  of  judge.  The 
term  "judge"  sometimes  signifies  officers  of  a  lower  grade  than 
that  of  judge,  as,  for  instance,  justices  of  the  peace. ^ 

§  204.  Duties  of  a  Judge — Generally. — The  duties  of  a  judge 
are  exclusively  judicial,^  but,  as  we  have  elsewhere  said,  judicial 
duty  is  not  confined  solely  to  the  hearing  and  decision  of  causes. 
Many  other  duties  rest  upon  a  judge,  but  they  are  all  of  a  ju- 
dicial nature,  and  connected  in  some  form  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice.  He  may  appoint  ministers  and  officers  of 
the  court  over  which  he  presides,  he  may  appoint  receivers, 

*  Bouvier's  Law  Diet.  Grand  Junction  Canal,  3  H.  L.  Cases, 

*  There  may  be  judicial  presence  al-  759;  Carrington  v.  Andrews,  12  Abb. 
though  there  is  no  officer  present  who  Pr.  R.  348 ;  Baldwin  v.  McArthur,  17 
is  in  strictness  a  judge.  Thus,  there  Barb.  414,  423 ;  Edwards  u.  Russell,  21 
may  be  a  court  of  county  commission-  Wend.  63 ;  Footr.  Morgan,  1  Hill,  654. 
ers,  or  of  county  supervisors,  or  of  *  Edmund  Burke  says:  "A  judge  is 
quarter  sessions  or  of  justices  of  the  not  placed  in  that  high  position  merely 
peace;  yet  there  is  no  person  in  any  as  a  passive  instrument  of  parties, 
of  these  tribunals  that  can  with  pro-  He  has  a  duty  of  his  own  independ- 
priety  or  accuracy  be  denominated  a  ent  of  them,  and  that  duty  is  to  in- 
judge.  vestigate  the  truth."     Burke's  Work 

» Regina  v.  Aberdale  Canal  Co.,  14     (Bohn's  ed.),  Vol.  VI,  496. 
Ad.   &  Ellis  (N.  S.),  854;   Dimes  v. 
14 


210  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  204 

trustees  and  administrators,  he  may  admit  to  the  bar  of  his 
court  counselors  and  attorneys,  and  may  perform  various  other 
acts  which  partake  of  the  nature  of  executive  functions.  It  is 
true  practically,  but  denied  theoretically,  that  he  exercises 
functions  in  their  nature  legislative,  although  he  does  not,  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  exercise  legislative  powers.  When 
he  creates  what  Austin  calls  "judge  made  law,"  he  acts  sub- 
stantially as  a  legislator,  and  yet  it  is  an  approved  saying  that 
"judicial  legislation  is  odious."^  A  judge  who  does  his  duty 
does  not  exercise  strictly  legislative  powers,  although  he  may 
create  new  rules.  He  does  not,  as  the  legislature  may  do, 
arbitrarily  establish  new  laws,  but  he  does  construct  new  rules; 
constructing  them,  however,  out  of  materials  existing  in  the 
decisions  or  the  statutes.  It  is  nevertheless  true,  as  matter  of 
fact,  that  much  of  our  common  law  is  judge  made,  and  it  is 
due  to  truth  to  say  that  it  is  usually  the  soundest  and  best  law 
we  have.^  In  theory,  law  is  not  originally  created  by  judges, 
for  they  act  upon  established  principles  or  statutes  and  by  a 
process  of  reasoning  extend  these  principles  to  new  instances. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  creative  process  constantly  going  on  and 
sometimes  this  process  results  in  the  establishment  of  essen- 
tially new  rules.  There  is,  also,  a  spirit  of  reconstruction  al- 
most constantly  at  work,  inasmuch  as  old  doctrines  give  way 
to  new.  While  there  is  a  high  respect  for  precedent  and  a 
strong  disposition  to  give  the  rule  stare  decisis  full  play  there 
is  no  servile  homage  paid  to  precedent  nor  blind  obedience 
yielded  to  the  rule  stare  decisis.  Many  doctrines  that  a  few 
years  ago  were  considered  as  unalterably  established  have  been 

^  "The  judges  are  to  declare  the  law,  of  the  legislature   framing  new  pro- 

not  to  make  the  law."  visions   as  occasion   has   required,  it 

*  It  is  true,  beyond  controversy,  that  has  been  left  to  able  judges  to  in- 
equity jurisprudence  is  almost  entirely  vade  its  province  and  arrogate  to 
the  creation  of  chancellors,  and,  cer-  themselves  the  lofty  jirivileges  of  cor- 
tainly,  of  all  legal  systems  "it  is  the  recting  abuses  and  introducing  im- 
fairest  and  wisest."  Dwarris  says:  provements.  The  rules  are  thus  left 
"Obsolete  or  unsuitable  laws  instead  in  the  hearts  of  the  judges  instead  of 
of  being  removed  from  the  statute  being  put  upon  a  right  footing  by  leg- 
book,  have  been  made  to  bend  to  islative  enactment."  Dwarris  Stat, 
modern  usages  and  feelings.     Instead  792. 


§  205  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  211 

overthrown.  Tn  many  instances  rules  have  been  changed  by 
a  silent  refusal  to  yield  to  precedent,  in  other  instances  earlier 
cases  have  been  directly  overruled.  Principles  of  justice  which 
are  in  their  nature  primary  and  fundamental  remain  un- 
changed, but  their  application  is  not  infrequently  changed  and 
their  scope  extended  or  limited.  It  is,  therefore,  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  judges  always  tread  in  the  dim  footsteps  of 
antiquity  and  that  no  progress  is  made  by  judicial  action.  It 
is  true,  of  course,  that  great  and  radical  changes  are  usually 
made  by  legislation,  but  it  is  not  true  that  the  courts  make  no 
progress. 

§  205.  Judicial  duties  and  functions. — Judicial  duty  some- 
times embraces  acts  that  if  not  connected  with  the  business 
and  affairs  of  the  court  would  be  purely  ministerial  or  execu- 
tive. There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  power  to  appoint  min- 
isters of  court,  as  master  commissioners,  trustees,  receivers, 
administrators  and  the  like,  and  yet,  the  abstract  power  of  ap- 
pointment is  essentially  an  executive  one.  Whether  an  act 
ministerial  or  executive  in  its  intrinsic  nature  is  or  is  not  a 
judicial  one  depends  upon  whether  it  is  or  is  not  connected 
with  the  business  or  affairs  of  the  court.  It  is  essential  to  ju- 
dicial independence  as  well  as  to  the  proper  and  effective  ad- 
ministration of  justice  that  judges  should  possess  powers  not, 
in  the  strict  sense,  of  a  purely  judicial  character.  It  will,  in- 
deed, be  found  that  all  the  great  elements  of  government  are, 
in  a  limited  degree,  blended  in  each  department.  Thus,  a 
sheriff  who  levies  upon  property  acts  in  a,  quasi  judicial  capac- 
ity in  determining  whether  the  property  he  seizes  is  subject  to 
execution,  but,  nevertheless,  he  is  a  ministerial  and  not  a  ju- 
dicial ofhcer.  So,  too,  the  legislature  in  determining  whether 
a  law  can  be  made  general  acts  judicially,  yet  it  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  the  legislature  has  no  part  of  the  judicial  power  of 
the  commonwealth  it  represents.  An  officer  is  not  a  judicial 
one  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term  merely  because  he  performs 
duties  of  a  judicial  nature.  If  it  were  otherwise  it  would  be 
almost  impossible  to  conceive  of  an  office  not  judicial,  inas- 


212  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  206 

much  as  all  officers,  whatever  their  class  or  rank,  are  required 
to  exercise  functions  and  perform  duties  which  in  their  nature 
are  judicial.^  On  the  other  hand,  a  judicial  officer  does  not 
become  a  ministerial  or  executive  officer  because  some  of  the 
duties  or  acts  he  is  required  to  perform  are,  abstractly  con- 
sidered, executive  or  ministerial.  The  truth  is,  that  no  official 
duty  or  function  is  to  be  considered  in  the  abstract,  but,  as  the 
logicians  say,  must  "be  dealt  with  in  the  concrete."  Thus 
dealing  with  an  act,  duty,  or  function — and  it  is  the  only  sensi- 
ble mode  in  which  to  deal  with  them — there  is  no  difficulty  in 
holding  that  an  act  constituting  a  part  of  the  machinery  for 
the  administration  of  justice  is  a  judicial  act  no  matter  what 
may  be  its  intrinsic  or  abstract  nature.  Whatever  is  part  of 
that  machinery  or  essential  to  the  proper  and  effective  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  and  functions  of  a  judge  is  judicial. 

§  206.    Only  Judicial  duties  can  be  imposed  on  Judges. — The 

fundamental  principle  of  separate  and  independent  depart- 
ments of  government  prohibits  the  law-making  branch  of  gov- 
ernment from  imposing  upon  judges  duties  or  functions  that 
are  not  of  a  judicial  nature.  Judges  can  not  be  invested  with 
powers  that  belong  to  some  other  branch  of  government,  since 
to  permit  this  would  result  in  a  complete  subversion  of  the 
great  principle  we  have  mentioned.  While  it  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  clearly  mark  the  line  that  separates  judicial  from 
non-judicial  powers,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of 
the  general  doctrine  stated.^     As  we  have  elsewhere  shown,  a 

'  Eastman  v.  State,  109  Ind.  278,  281 ;  S.)  40,  note ;  Auditors.  Atchison,  etc., 

Wilkins  v.  State,  113   Ind.  514,518;  Co., 6  Kan.  500;  Supervisors  of  Elec- 

Maynes  v.  Moore,  16  Ind.  116;    Pen-  tions,  114  Mass.  247;  Rees  v.  City  of 

ningtonv.  Streight,  54  Ind.376;  Crane  Watertown,    19  Wall.    107;  Heine  v. 

V.Camp,  12  Conn.  463;    Flournoy  v.  Levee   Commissioners,  19  Wall.  655; 

City   of  Jeffersonville,    17    Ind.    169.  Ex  parte  Cans,  17  Fed.  R.  471 ;    Grif- 

See,  generally,  Elmore  v.  Overton,  104  fiths,  ex  parte,  118  Ind.  83;  Griffin  v. 

Ind.  548,  S.  C.  54  Am.  R.  343;    State  State,  119  Ind.  520;  Smith  v.  Strother, 

V.  Johnson,  105  Ind.  463,  467 ;  Betts  v.  68   Cal.  194 ;  Burgoyne  v.  Supervisors, 

Dimon,  3  Conn.  107;  State  v.  Doyle,  5  Cal.  9;  People  v.  Town  of  Nevada,  6 

40  Wis.  175.  Cal.   143;  Hardenburgh   v.   Kidd,    10 

'  Hayburn's Case,  2 Dallas, 409, note;  Cal.  402;  McLean  County  Precinct  u. 

United  States -y.  Ferreira,  13  How.  (U.  Deposit  Bank,   81    Ky.  254;   State  v. 


§  207 


JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS. 


213 


judicial  duty  or  function  is  not  confined  to  the  mere  duty  or 
function  of  hearing  and  deciding  cases,  but  extends  to  all  mat- 
ters legitimately  connected  with  the  administration  of  justice. 

§  207.  Duties  of  a  Judge  can  not  be  delegated. — It  is  an  an- 
cient rule  that  judicial  duties  or  powers  can  not  be  delegated.^ 
The  duties  of  a  judge  are  personal,  and  no  other  person  can 
perform  them.  "It  is  only  the  appointed  judge  who  can  speak 
the  authoritative  words  of  the  law."'^  The  general  principle 
has  been  applied  in  various  modes  and  in  many  cases,  thus  the 
reception  of  a  verdict  is  a  judicial  function  that  can  not  be 


Young,  29  Minn.  474;  Shephard  v. 
City  of  Wheeling,  4  S.  E.  R.  635.  Judge 
Cooley  thus  states  the  rule:  "Upon 
judges,  as  such,  no  functions  can  be 
imposed  except  those  of  a  judicial  na- 
ture." Principles  of  Constitutional 
Law,  53.  Some  of  the  courts  have 
trenched  upon  the  rule  stated  in  the 
text,  and,  in  doing  so,  have,  as  we 
believe,  departed  from  sound  prin- 
ciple. State  V.  Brown,  35  Kan.  167; 
In  re  Johnson,  12  Kan.  102;  Young  v. 
Ledrick,  14  Kan.  92;  States.  Majors, 
16  Kan.  440;  Intoxicating  Liquor 
Cases,  25  Kan.  751 ;  Kirkpatrick  «. 
State,5  Kan.673;  Miller  r.State.2  Kan. 
174;  Rice  r.State,3  Kan.  141 ;  Sherryo. 
Sampson,  11  Kan.  611 ;  Wintield  Town 
Co. i\ Maris,  11  Kan. 128;  McTaggartv. 
Harrison,  12  Kan.  62;  Caviel  v.  Cole- 
man,72  Tex.  550 ;  State  v.  Tollo,  71  Mo. 
645.  It  seems  to  us  that  to  hold  that 
ministerial  or  executive  duties  may  be 
imposed  upon  judges  is  to  disregard 
a  fundamental  principle  of  constitu- 
tional law,  for  the  jtlain  meaning  of 
the  constitution  is  that  judges  shall 
be  charged  exclusively  with  judicial 
duties.  The  doctrine  that  ministerial 
duties  may  be  imposed  on  judges  leads 
to  the  rednctio  ad  ahsrirdtim,  for,  if  the 
power  be  affirmed,  it  must  also  be 
affirmed   that    anv   dutv    whatsoever 


may  be  imposed,  since,  if  it  be  granted 
that  the  power  exists,  its  exercise  can 
not  be  restricted  or  limited.  Conced- 
ing the  existence  of  the  power  involves 
the  further  concession  that  the  matter 
is  one  of  legislative  discretion,  and, 
therefore,  one  limited  only  by  the 
legislative  will  or  pleasure.  We 
think  it  clear  that  the  question  is  one 
of  power  or  no  power,  and  that  no 
such  power  exists. 

'  Hards  D.  Burton,  79  111.  504;  Van- 
dercook  v.  Williams,  106  Ind.  345; 
Wilkins  t?.  State,  113  Ind  514;  Camp 
bell  V.  Board,  118  Ind.  119;  Stater. 
Noble,  118  Ind.  350.  Chancellor  Kent 
says:  "The  general  rule  is  that  judi- 
cial offices  must  be  exercised  in  per- 
son, and  that  a  judge  can  not  delegate 
his  authority  to  another.  I  do  not 
know  of  any  exception  to  this  rule  with 
us."  3  Com.  (12th  ed.)  457 ;  2  Bacon's 
Abridg.  620;  Broom's  Legal  Maxims, 
841. 

'  Per  Ryan,  C.  J.,  in  Van  Slyke  v. 
Trempealeau,  etc.,  Co.,  39Wis.  390.  It 
is  not  to  be  understood,  however,  that 
special  judges  may  not  be  appointed 
where  the  constitution  permits,  for, 
as  we  shall  presently  show,  special 
judges  may  be  appointed,  and,  when 
duly  appointed,  may  "speak  the  au- 
thoritative words  of  the  law.' 


214 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  208 


delegated.*  But  while  it  is  true  that  a  judge  can  not  delegate 
his  powers  or  functions,  yet  he  may,  where  the  law  so  provides, 
call  a  special  judge  to  discharge  his  duties. ^ 

§  208.  De  facto  Judges — Generally. — It  is  often  said  that 
only  the  duly  elected  or  appointed  judge  can  speak  the  au- 
thoritative words  of  the  law,^  and  in  a  general  sense  this  is 
true,  but  yet  one  who  takes  this  statement  unreservedly  and 
without  qualification  will  fall  into  error.  The  decided  weight 
of  authority  is  that  the  acts  of  a  de  facto  judge  are  valid.  There 
is  much  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  invest 
one  exercising  judicial  functions  with  the  character  of  a  judge 
de  facto,  but  there  is  substantial  agreement  upon  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  acts  of  one  actually  exercising  the  functions  of  a 
judge  de  facto  are  not  void.*     It  does  not  always  follow,  how- 


'Britton  V.  Fox,  39  Ind.  369;  Mc- 
Clure  V.  State,  77  Ind.  287;  State  v. 
Jefferson,  66  N.  C.  309. 

^  This  subject  is  fully  considered  in 
a  subsequent  paragraph  under  the  title 
of  special  judges. 

'  Case  of  the  Marshelsea,  10  Coke 
76;  Winchester  v.  Ayres,  4  Greene 
104;  Ex  parte,  Williams,  4  Yerger 
579 ;  Dodson  v.  Scroggs,  47  Mo.  285 
Dimes  v.  Grand  Canal,  etc.,  Co.,  3  H 
L.  Cases,  794 ;  North  Bloomfield,  etc. 
Co.  V.  Keyser,  58  Cal.  315;  City  of 
Kansas  v.  Knotts,  78  Mo.  356,  359 
Livermore  v.  Brundage,  64  Cal.  299 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Price,  1  Hopk.  Ch 
2;  nigourney  •;;.  Sibly,  21  Pick.  105 
Kennedy  v.  Giles,  25  Mich.  83. 

*  Blackburn  v.  State,  3  Head.  690 
Case  V.  State,  5  Ind.  1 ;  In  re  Boyle,  9 
AVis.  264 ;  State  v.  Bloom,  17  Wis.  521 
People  V.  Mellon,  40  Cal.  648;  Ex 
parte  Strahl,  16  Iowa,  369 ;  Turney  v. 
Dibrell,  3  Baxter,235 ;  People  w.  Staton, 
73  N.  Car.  546,  S.  C.  21  Am.  E.  479; 
Ex  parte  Johnson,  15  Neb.  512,  S.  C. 
19  N.  W.  R.  594;  Littleton  v.  Smith, 
119  Ind.  230,   S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  886; 


Walcott  V.  Wells,  21  Nev.  — ,  S.  C.  9 
Lawyers'  Rep.  Anno.  59;  Taylor  v. 
Skrine,  3  Bre.  516 ;  State  v.  Carroll, 
38  Conn.  449;  Norton  v.  Shelby 
County,  118  U.  S.  425;  State  v.  Mc- 
Martin,  42  Minn.  30,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R. 
572;  Cromer  V.  Boinest,  27  S.  Car.  436, 
S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  849;  Gallup  v.  Smith, 
59  Conn.  354,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  334; 
Jameson  v.  Hudson,  82  Va.  279 ;  State 
V.  Lewis,  107  N.  C.  967,  S.  C.  11  Law- 
yers' Rep.  Anno.  105;  Ball  v.  United 
States,  140  U.  S.  118 ;  Angell  v.  Steere, 
16  R.  I.  200,  S.  C.  14  Atl.  R.  81 ;  In  re 
Burke,  76  Wis.  357,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R. 
24 ;  In  re  Manning,  76  Wis.  365,  S.  C. 
45  N.W.  R.  26 ;  Baker  v.  State,  80  Wis. 
410,  S.C.  50  N.W.  R.  518 ;  United  States 
V.  Alexander,  46  Fed.  R.  728 ;  Manning 
^7.Weeks,  139  U.  S.  504,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  624.  See,  generally.  Rives  v.  Petit, 
4  Ark.  582 ;  In  re  Ah  Lee,  6  Sawy . 
(U.  S.  C.  C.)  410;  Campbell  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 96  Pa.  St.  344 ;  Brown  v. 
Lunt,  37  Me.  423 ;  In  re  Parks,  3  Mont. 
426;  Fitchburg,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grand 
Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Allen,  552;  Peter- 
silea  V.  Stone,  119  Mass.  467;  Clark  v. 


§  209  JUDGKS    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  215 

ever,  that  because  the  acts  of  a  judge  de  facto  are  not  void  that 
he  is  exonerated  from  personal  liability.  The  acts  of  such  an 
officer  arc  upheld  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  and  not  for  that 
of  the  officer,  so  that  there  may  be  a  personal  liability  where 
there  is  legal  wrong  and  injury,  although  the  acts  of  the  de 
facto  officer  may  be  sustained  in  favor  of  the  public  or  third 
persons.^  We  are  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  the  rule  as  de- 
clared and  enforced  by  some  of  the  courts  is  not  sustained  by 
principle.  Our  judgment  is  that  where  there  is  color  of  right, 
and  the  person  assuming  to  act  as  a  judge  acts  in  good  faith 
and  in  the  honest  belief  that  he  is  the  rightful  occupant  of  the 
office,  he  simply  makes  an  erroneous  decision  and  is  not  a 
mere  naked  usurper  or  intruder,  and  is  not  personally  liable 
for  the  consequences  of  his  mistake.  We  believe  that  where 
the  claim  to  the  office  is  not  entirely  groundless  or  colorless 
the  officer  who  honestly  decides  upon  his  own  title  is  not  liable, 
inasmuch  as  he  does  no  more  than  judicially  declare  his  judg- 
ment upon  the  question.  If  an  officer  should  erroneously  de- 
cide against  his  own  title  he  certainly  would  not  be  liable  for 
his  error,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  for  declaring  a  different 
rule  where  there  is  color  of  right,  good  faith  and  a  mere  error 
of  judgment,  although  the  decision  is  favorable  to  the  title  of 
the  person  who  gives  the  decision. 

§  209.  What  constitutes  a  Judge  de  facto. — A  consideration 
of  the  question  of  what  constitutes  a  judge  de  facto  carries  us 
into  a  field  of  stubborn  conflict.  The  cases  fight  sturdily  on 
both  sides  of  the  general  question,  and  many  and  various 
shades  of  opinion  are  exhibited  in  the  decisions.  So  great  is 
the  confusion  that  it  is  unsafe  to  say  what  is  essential  to  make 

Easton,  146  Mass.  43;  Hamlin  v.  Kas-  37  Barb.  159,  165;  Courser  v.  Powers, 

safer,  15  Ore.  458;  McCraw  r.  Will-  34  Vt.  517.    The  case  last  cited  carries 

iams,  33  Gratt.  510 ;  State  v.  Gleason,  the  doctrine  to  a  very  great  length, 

12  Fla.  190;    Brown  v.  Lunt,  37  Me.  and,  with  deference  to  the  very  able 

423 ;  Pepin  r.  Lachenmeyor,  45  N.Y.27.  court  which  pronounced  the  judgment, 

•  Grace  r.  Teagne,  81  Me.  550,  S.  C.  we  confess  our  inability  to  yield  as- 

18  Atl.  Rep.  289;  Newman  v.  Tiernan,  sent. 


216 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


209 


one  who  assumes  to  exercise  judicial  functions  a  judge  de  facto.^ 
The  best  that  can  be  done  is  to  refer  to  some  of  the  principal 
cases  and  extract  the  doctrines  they  declare.  Some  of  the  courts 
hold  that  although  the  office  is  created  by  an  unconstitutional 
statute,  yet  one  who  enters  it  and  exercises  its  functions  may 
be,  as  to  the  public  and  third  person,  an  officer  de  facto,^  but 
other  courts  declare  an  essentially  different  doctrine.^  It  is  de- 
clared by  some  of  the  courts  that  if  the  judge  has  been  of  coun- 
sel in  the  case  his  acts  are  void,*  but  by  other  courts  a  different 
doctrine  is  affirmed.^  An  unauthorized  appointment  is  held  by 
some  of  the  courts  not  to  constitute  the  appointee  a  judge  de 


'  In  the  case  of  Walcott  v.  Wells,  21 
Nev.  — ,  S.  C.  9  Lawyers'  Rep.  Anno. 
59,  and  State  v.  Blossom,  19  Nev.  312, 
the  court  accept  as  sound  the  follow- 
ing statement  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Connecticut  in  State  v.  Carroll,  38 
Conn.  449:  "An  officer  de  facto  is  one 
whose  acts,  though  not  those  of  a  law- 
ful officer,  the  law,  upon  principles  of 
policy  and  justice,  will  hold  valid  so 
far  as  they  involve  the  interests  of  the 
public  and  third  persons,  where  the 
duties  of  the  office  were  exercised: 
First.  Without  a  known  appointment 
or  election,  but  under  such  circum- 
stances of  reputation  or  acquiescence 
as  were  calculated  to  induce  people, 
without  inquiry,  to  submit  to  or  in- 
voke his  action,  supposing  him  to  be 
the  officer  he  assumed  to  be.  Second. 
Under  color  of  a  known  and  valid  ap- 
pointment or  election,  but  where  the 
officer  had  failed  to  conform  to  some 
precedent,  requirement  or  condition, 
as  to  take  an  oath,  give  a  bond  or  the 
like.  Third.  Under  color  of  a  known 
election  or  appointment,  void  because 
the  officer  was  not  eligible,  or  because 
there  was  a  want  of  power  in  the  elec- 
ting or  appointing  body,  or  by  reason 
of  some  defect  or  irregularity  in  its 
exercise;   such  ineligibility,  want  of 


power  or  defect  being  unknown  to  the 
public.  Fourth.  Under  color  of  an 
election  or  appointment  by  or  pursu- 
ant to  a  public  unconstitutional  law, 
before  the  same  is  adjudged  to  be 
such."  See,  also,  Mallett  v.  Uncle 
Sam,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Nev.  188 ;  Meagher  v. 
Storey  County,  5  Nev.  244 ;  State  v. 
Curtis,  9  Nev.  325;  Commonwealth  v. 
Taber,  123  Mass.  253. 

2  Leach  v.  People,  122  111.  420; 
Creighton  v.  Piper,  14  Ind.  182,  184 ; 
Taylor  1?.  Skrine,  3  Brev.  516;  Smurr 
V.  State,  105  Ind.  125,  133,  S.  C.  4  N. 
E.  R.  445 ;  Ex  parte  Strang,  21  Ohio 
St.  610;  In  re  Ah  Lee,  5  Fed.  R.  899, 
912 ;  Case  v.  State,  5  Ind.  1 ;  State  v. 
Williams,  35  La.  Ann.  742 ;  State  v. 
Douglass,  50  Mo.  593 ;  Brown  v.  O'Con- 
nell,  36  Conn.  432;  People  v.  White, 
24  Wend.  520;  Morris  v.  People,  3 
Denio,  381 ;  Sheehan's  Cases,  122 
Mass.  445,  S.  C.  23  Am.  R.  374;  Clark 
V.  Commonwealth,  29  Pa.  St.  129; 
Blackburn  v.  State,  40  Tenn.  689. 

^  Van  Slyke  v.  Trempealeau,  etc.,  39 
Wis.  390,  S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  50 ;  Rodman 
V.  Harcourt,  4  B.  Monr.  224,  230;  Peo- 
ple V.  Albertson,  8  How.  Pr.  363. 

*  Newcome  v.  Light,  58  Texas,  141, 
S.  C.  44  Am.  R.  604. 

^  Holmes  v.  Eason,  76  Tenn.  754,  760. 


§  209 


JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS. 


217 


facto,^  but  by  other  courts  a  different  doctrine  is  maintained. ^ 
There  is  no  substantial  disagreement  upon  the  proposition  that 
where  a  judge  once  rightfully  in  office  holds  over  after  the  ex- 
piration of  his  term  of  office,  he  is,  nevertheless,  a  judge  de 
facto,  and  his  acts  are  valid. -^  It  lias  been  held  that  where  the 
office  has  been  abolished,  it  can  not  have  a  de  facto  incumbent.^ 
In  opposition  to  the  cases  cited  in  a  preceding  note,  it  has  been 
held  that  where  the  appointment  was  wholly  unauthorized,  there 
can  be  no  judge  de  facto.^  Some  of  the  decisions  declare  that  a 
judge  disqualified  by  the  common  law  may  be  a  judge  de  facto,^ 
but  not  if  the  disqualification  is  by  positive  statute,  while  other 
cases  refuse  to  recognize  any  such  distinction.'  There  is  much 
conflict  upon  the  question  whether  the  action  of  a  judge  dis- 
qualified by  interest  is  void,  but  at  common  law  the  rule  is  that 
the  acts  of  such  a  judge  are  not  void,  although  they  may,  if 


'  Gresham  v.  Ewell,  84  Va.  784,  S. 
C.  6  S.  E.  R.  700;  People  v.  Carter,  29 
Barb.  208,  211. 

"Littleton  v.  Smith,  119  Ind.  230,  S. 
C.  21  N.  E.  R.  886;  State  v.  Bloom,  17 
Wis.  521 ;  Town  of  Lewiston  v.  Proc- 
tor, 23  111.  483;  Baker  v.  State,  69 
Wis.  32,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  52 ;  Baker 
V.  Wambaugh,  99  Ind.  312,  316;  Pow- 
ell V.  Powell,  104  Ind.  18,  29,  S.  C.  3 
N.  E.  R.  639;  State  v.  Murdock,  86 
Ind.  124 ;  Cocke  v.  Halsey,  16  Pet.  71 ; 
Commonwealth  v.  McCombs,  56  Pa. 
St.  436;  Carleton  v.  People,  10  Mich. 
250;  Hunters.  Ferguson,  13  Kan. 462. 

3  Read  v.  City  of  Buffalo,  4  Abb.  App. 
Dec.  22;  Hamlin  r.  Kassafer,  15  Ore- 
gon, 456,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  778;  Morton 
V.  Lee,  28  Kan.  286;  Carli  v.  Rhener, 
27  Minn.  292,  S.  C.  7  X.  W.  R.  139; 
Stevenson  r.  Miller,  2  Litt.  (Ky.)  306; 
State  V.  Pertsdorf,  33  La.  Ann.  1411 ; 
Guthrie  v.  Guthrie,  71  Iowa,  744,  S.  C. 
30  N.  W.  R.  779;  Babcock  v.  Wolf,  70 
Iowa,  676.  A  singular  case  is  that  of 
Coolidge  V.  Brigham,  1  Allen,  333.  In 
that  case  the   governor  intended  to 


appoint  to  office  one  William  Barnes, 
who  was  known  to  him,  and  mailed 
to  that  William  Barnes  a  commission, 
but  the  William  Barnes  the  governor 
intended  to  appoint  had  died,  another 
William  Barnes  received  the  commis- 
sion and  qualified,  and  the  court  held 
that  he  became  an  officer  de  facto. 

*  In  re  Hinkle,  31  Kan.  712,  715. 

^  Ilyllis  V.  State,  45  Ark.  478.  See 
Brown  v.  Fleming,  3  Ark.  284 ;  Hoag- 
land  V.  Creed,  81  111.  506;  Andrews  v. 
Beck,  23  Texas,  455.  See  Dabney  v. 
Hudson,  68  Miss.  292,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  545. 

«Heydenfeldt  v.  Towns,  27  Ala.  423; 
Frevert  v.  Swift,  19  Nev.  363,  S.  C.  11 
Pac.  R.  273  ;  Fechheimer  v.  Washing- 
ton, 77  Ind.  366;  Cottle,  Appellant,  5 
Pick.  483 ;  Coffin  v.  Cottle,  9  Pick.  287 ; 
Sigourney  r.  Sibley,  21  Pick.  101,  S.  C. 
32  Am.  bee.  248;  Gay  v.  Minot,  3 
Cush.  352;  State  v.  Castleberry,  23 
Ala.  85. 

'  Floyd  County  v.  Cheney,  57  Iowa, 
160 ;  Koger  r.  Franklin,  79  Ala.  505 ; 
Plowman  v.  Henderson,  59  Ala.  559. 


218 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§210 


properly  and  opportunely  challenged,  be  avoided  for  error;^ 
where,  however,  there  is  a  peremptory  statute  disqualifying  the 
person  assuming  to  act  as  judge,  the  weight  of  authority  is  that 
his  acts  can  not  be  supported  as  those  of  a  judge  de  facto? 
Other  cases  assert  a  different  doctrine,  and  affirm  that  the  acts 
of  a  disqualified  judge  are  voidable,  but  not  void.^  Cases  of 
the  latter  class  hold  that  if  no  objection  is  made  in  the  trial 
court  none  can  be  successfully  made  on  appeal. 

§  210.   No  man  shall  be  a  Judge  in  his  own  cause. — The 

common  law  rule  that  no  man  shall  be  a  judge  in  his  own 
cause^  is  the  expression  of  a  principle  of  natural  justice,  and 
so  firmly  interwoven  into  the  governmental  system  of  our 
English  ancestry  that  it  is  regarded  as  a  part  of  our  organic 


iGorrill  v.  Whittier,  3  N.  H.  268; 
McMillan  v.  Nichols,  62  Ga.  36 ;  Rhea's 
Succession,  31  La.  Ann.  323 ;  Stearns 
V.  Wright,  51  N.  H.  600;  Trawick  ?;. 
Trawick,  67 Ala.  271 ;  Fowler  tJ.  Brooks, 
64  N.  H.  423,  S.  C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  425; 
Rogers  v.  Felker,  77  Ga.  46;  Beall  v. 
Sinquefield,  73  Ga.  48 ;  Dimes  v.  Grand 
Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Eng.  Law  and 
Eq.  63.  See,  generally,  Moses  v.  Jul- 
ian, 45  N.  H.  52,  S.  C.  84  Am.  Dec. 
114;  Shropshire  «.  State,  12  Ark.  190; 
Ellsworth  V.  Moore,  5  Iowa,  486 ;  Bald- 
win V.  Calkins,  10  Wend.  167. 

2  Horton  v.  Howard,  79  Mich.  642, 
S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  198;  Oakley  v. 
Aspinwall,  3  N.  Y.  547;  Andrews  v. 
Beck,  23  Texas,  455 ;  Chase  v.  Weston, 
75  Iowa,  159,  S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.  246; 
Hall  V.  Thayer,  105  Mass.  219,  S.  C.  7 
Am.  R.  513;  Templeton  v.  Giddings 
(Tex. ), 12  S.W.R.851;  Reams  u.Kearns, 
5  Cold.  217;  Converse  v.  McArthur, 
17  Barb.  410;  Estate  of  White,  37  Cal. 
190 ;  Chamber::  v.  Hodges,  23  Texas, 
104 ;  People  v.  De  la  Guerra,  24  Cal. 
73;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Summers, 
113  Ind.  10,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R. 
616;    Newcome    v.    Light,  58   Texas, 


141,  S.  C.  44  Am.  R.  604;  Ochus  u. 
Sheldon,  12  Fla.  138.  See,  generally, 
Dawson  v.  Dawson,  29  Mo.  App.  521 ; 
State  V.  Sachs,  3  Wash.  691,  S.  C.  29 
Pac.  R.  446;  Dawson  v.  Wells,  3  Ind. 
398;  Howell  v.  Budd,  91  Cal.  342,  S.  C. 
27  Pac.  R.  747 ;  Wroe  v.  Greer,  2  Swan. 
172 ;  Crozier  v.  Goodwin,  1  Lea,  125. 

^Hine  v.  Hussey,  45  Ala.  496;  Fow- 
ler V.  Brooks,  64  N.  H.  423,  S.  C.  13 
Atl.  R.  417 ;  Posey  v.  Eaton,  9  Lea,  500, 
503 ;  State  w.Voorhies,  41  La.  Ann.  567, 
S.  C.  6  S.  R.  826;  Ellsworth  v.  Moore, 
5  Iowa,  486 ;  Stone  v.  Marion  County, 
78Iowa,  14,  S.C.42N.W.  R.  570.  See 
Phillips  V.  Eyre,  6  Q.  B.  1 ;  Eastwood 
V.  Buel,  1  Ind.  434 ;  Rogers  v.  Felker,  77 
Ga.  46 ;  Koger  v.  Franklin,  79Ala.  505 ; 
Plowman  v.  Henderson,  59  Ala.  559. 

*  Chief  Justice  Coke  declared  that 
"even  an  act  of  Parliament  made 
against  natural  equity,  as  to  make  a 
man  judge  in  his  own  cause,  is  void  in 
itself."  Coke  Litt.,  §  212.  In  this  age 
of  British  history  Coke's  statement 
can  hardly  be  accepted  as  correct, 
wise  as  it  is,  for  the  supremacy  of  Par- 
liament is  now  so  complete  that  it  is 
almost  all-powerful. 


§   211  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  219 

law.^  By  force  of  the  great  principle  tliat  written  constitu- 
tions are  deemed  to  be  framed  by  men  living  in  organized  so- 
ciety and  with  reference  to  existing  fundamental  principles, 
the  rule  stated  is  held  to  form  part  of  our  American  constitu- 
tions, although  no  written  words  give  it  expression.'^  Where 
a  man  decides  upon  his  own  rights  as  against  opposing  claims 
of  others,  tliere  is  no  exercise  of  judicial  power,  since  an  in- 
trinsic and  irreparable  attribute  of  that  power  is  freedom  from 
the  influence  of  self-interest.  Judicial  power  is  not  a  legisla- 
tive creation  and  the  legislature  can  no  more  create  judicial 
power  than  it  can  create  natural  justice,  hence  any  attempt  to 
lodge  judicial  power  where  it  can  not  possibly  exist  must,  in 
all  constitutional  governments,  be  utterly  abortive. 

§  211.    Disqualifleation  of  judo^es  by  interest. — There  can  be 

no  doubt,  as  is  evident  from  what  we  have  said  in  the  preced- 
ing paragraph,  that  when  a  judge  has  an  actual  and  material 
interest  in  the  suit  or  action  he  is  disqualified,  although 
there  may  be  no  positive  statute  declaring  that  interest  dis- 
qualifies. The  only  question  is  as  to  the  character  or  degree 
of  interest  that  is  sufficient  to  disqualify  a  judge  from  sitting 
in  the  particular  case.  It  has  been  held  that  the  interest  which 
will  disqualify  a  judge  is  a  property  interest  in  contradiction 
to  an  interest  of  feeling  or  sympathy.'^     When  the  term  inter- 

'  Judge  Cooley  says:  "A  legislative  sas  v.  Knotts,  78  IMo.  356,  359;  North 
act  which  should  undertake  to  make  Bloomfield,etc.,r.  Keyser,  58Cal.315. 
a  judge  the  arbiter  in  his  own  contro-  '  Sauls  v.  Freeman,  24  Fla.  209,  S.  C. 
vcrsies  would  Vie  void,  because  though  12  Am.  St.  R.  190,4  So.  R.  525.  In 
in  form  a  provision  for  the  exercise  of  the  course  of  the  opinion  the  court 
jn<licial  power,  in  substance  it  would  said:  "The  interest  meant  by  the 
be  the  creation  of  an  arbitrary  and  statute  is  property  interest.  In  In- 
irresponsible  authority,  neither  leg-  habitants  of  Northampton  v.  Smith, 
islative,  executive  or  judicial,  and  11  ]\Iet.  395,  it  is  said  that  the  interest 
wholly  unknown  to  constitutional  must  be  a  pecuniary  or  proprietary  in- 
government."  CooleyConst.  Lim.  175.  terest,  a  relation  by  which,  as  debtor 

^  Ante,  §155,4  Coke's  R.  118;  Insur-  or  creditor,  or  heir  or  legatee,  orother- 

ance   Co.  v.  Price,   1    Hopk.   Ch.  1;  wise,  the  judge  will  gain  or  lose  some- 

Sigourney  r.  Sibley,  21  Pick.  101  ;  Ken-  thing  by  the  result  of  the  proceedings, 

nedy  r.  Giles,  25  Mich.  84;  I.ivermore  in  contradistinction  to  an  interest  of 

».  Brundage,  04  Cal.  299;  City  of  Kan-  feelingor  sympathy  or  bias  that  would 


220 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§212 


est  is  employed  in  a  statute  it  is  safe  to  assume,  as  a  general 
rule,  that  a  pecuniary  or  property  interest  is  meant,  but  this 
meaning  may,  of  course,  be  altered  by  the  context. 


§  212.  The  degree  of  interest  that  disqualifies. — It  is,  as  we 
have  said,  clear  that  a  direct  substantial  interest  constitutes  a 
disqualification,  but  it  is  not  ever}^  interest,  although  of  a  pe- 
cuniary or  property  nature,  that  will  be  regarded  as  a  disquali- 
fication.^ A  possible  remote  or  contingent  interest  does  not 
ordinarily  incapacitate  a  judge  from  hearing  and  determining 
the  case.  As  an  example  of  a  real  and  material  interest  sufficient 
to  disqualify  may  be  given  that  of  a  stockholder  in  a  private 
corporation.^  Examples  of  interest  that  does  not  disqualify 
will  be  found  in  the  cases  which  hold  that  a  judge  is  not  dis- 
qualified by  the  fact  that  he  is  a  tax-payer  of  a  governmental 
corporation  interested  as  a  party  to  the  litigation.^  Where  the 
judge's  interest  as  stockholder  in  a  private  corporation  has 
terminated  he  is  not  disqualified.*     The  mere   fact  that  the 


disqualify  a  juror.  See,  also,  Sjoberg 
V.  Nordin,  2G  Minn.  501.  If  the  na- 
ture of  the  suit  is  such  that  no  indi- 
vidual property  interest  of  the  judge 
or  juror  is  involved  in  it,  there  can  be 
no  disqualification  of  either  on  the 
ground  of  interest." 

»  Ellis  u.  Smith,  42  Ala.  349;  Peck 
V.  Essex  Freeholders,  Spencer  (N.  J.), 
457;  Gaines  v.  Harvin,  19  "Ala.  491; 
Day  V.  Savadge,  Hob.  87;  Gains  v. 
Barr,  GO  Texas,  676.  See  Moses  v. 
Julian,  45  N.  H.  52,  and  cases  on  note 
84  Am.  Dec.  114. 

*  Gregory  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.,  4 
Ohio  St.  675;  Stuart  v.  Mechanics', 
etc..  Bank,  9  John.  496;  Bank  of  North 
America  v.  Fitzsimons,  2  Binn.  (Pa.) 
454.  See,  generally,  Limerick  v.  Mur- 
latt,  4.3  Kan.  318 ;  Patrick  v.  Crowe,  15 
Colo.  543. 

^  State  V.  Severance  (Me.),  2  New 
Eng.  R.  425;  In  re  Guendar,  69  Cal. 
88.     But   see,    Peck   v.    Freeholders, 


21  N.  J.  L.  656;  Commonwealth  v. 
Fletcher,  157  Mass.  14,  S.  C.  31  N.  E. 
R.  687.  In  State  v.  Craig  (Me.),  13 
Atl.  R.  129,  it  was  held  that  a  magis- 
trate is  not  disqualified  because  a 
moiety  of  the  penalty  sued  for  goes  to 
the  municipality  of  which  he  is  a  tax- 
payer. See,  upon  the  general  subject, 
Davis  V.  State,  44  Texas,  523 ;  Russell 
V.  Perry,  16  N.  H.  100;  Hancock's 
Will,  91  N.  Y.  284;  Hodde  v.  Susan, 
58  Texas,  389 ;  People  v.  Edmonds,  15 
Barb.  529;  McFaddin  v.  Preston,  54 
Texas,  403 ;  Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla. 
213 ;  Buckingham  v.  Davis,  9  Md.  324 ; 
Pearce  v.  Atwood,  13  Mass.  324;  Hills 
V.  Wells,  6  Pick.  104;  Grigsby  v.  May 
(Texas),  19  S.  W.  R.  343;  Succession 
of  Jan,  43  La.  Ann.  924,  S.  C.  10  S. 
R.  6. 

*  Palmer  v.  Lawrence,  5  N.  Y.  389; 
Nicholson  v.  Showalter  (Texas),  15  S. 
W.  R.  326. 


^  213  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  221 

judge   belongs  to  an  organization   fcn-nicd   for  the  purpose  of 
suppressing  thieving  does  not  disqualify  him  from  trying  a 

])erson  arrested  for  larreny.^ 

§  213.  Collateral  attacks  on  the  right  of  a  Judge  to  hear 
and  decide  a  case. — It  seems  to  us  that  many  of  the  cases 
wliich  hold  that  the  judgment  of  a  judge  pronounced  in  a  case 
where  he  is  disqualified  by  statute  may  be  treated  as  a  nullity 
go  entirely  too  far.  We  know  that  the  doctrine  we  venture  to 
condemn  is  asserted  l)y  able  courts,  but  we  can  not  believe 
their  premises  sound  or  their  reasoning  valid.  We  believe 
that  principle  requires  that  such  a  judgment  should  be  sub- 
ject to  collateral  impeachment  only  where  the  disqualification 
appears  of  record.  It  is  now  settled  beyond  fair  debate  that  a 
collateral  attack  avails  only  in  cases  where  the  defect  that 
makes  the  judgment  void  appears  on  the  face  of  the  record. 
If  extrinsic  evidence  is  required  to  prove  facts  establishing  the 
invalidity  of  the  judgment,  a  collateral  attack  will  fail.^  The 
doctrine  we  are  criticising  opposes  the  fundamental  principle 
we  have  stated,  inasmuch  &s  it  affirms  that  the  facts  creating 
the  disqualification  may  be  established  by  evidence  dehors  the 
record.  The  departure  from  the  principle  stated  brings  a  long 
train  of  evils,  for  it  destroys  faith  in  records  and  judgments, 
unsettles  adjudications  and  puts  ministerial  officers  in  peril. 
A  ministerial  officer  ought  not,  in  fairness  and  in  justice,  to 
be  required  to  look  beyond  the  face  of  the  record,  nor  is  he  re- 
quired to  do  so,  as  a  general  rule.  The  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule,  embodied  in  the  doctrine  we  are  considering,  is  an 
arbitrary  one,  deforming  the  law  and  breaking  in  upon  its  con- 
sistency, and  it  is  an  exception  having  no  foundation  in  reason 
or  justice.  Where  the  disqualifying  fact  appears  of  record  it 
is  otherwise,  for  in  such  a  case  the  record  imparts  full  infor- 

'  People  V.  Mahoney,  18  Cal.  180.  R.  289;  Scott  v.  Crews,  72  Mo.  2()1 ; 

'Harmon  v.   Moore,   112  Ind.  221;  Byrain   v.  McDowell,  83  Tenn.  581; 

Newcomb  v.  Newcomb,  13  Bush.  544,  Beccli   v.   Rich,  13  Vt.  595;   Ex  parte 

S.   C.   26   Am.  R.  222;  Stackhouse  y.  Bcrginan,  3  Wyo.  39(5,  S.  C.  2fi  Pac.  R. 

Ziintz,  36  La.  Ann.  529,  533;  Hughes  914;  AVellboru  v.  People,  76  111.  516. 
V.  Cummings,  7  Colo.  203,  S.  C.  2  Pac. 


222  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  214 

mation,  and  no  prudent  person  need  be  misled  or  deceived. 
The  rule  we  favor  does  not  run  counter  to  the  constitutional 
principle  that  no  man  can  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause,  for  if 
the  cause  is  in  the  full  and  true  sense  that  of  the  judge,  the 
record  will  so  disclose.  A  judge  may  be  in  some  degree  inter- 
ested, and  still  the  cause  not  be  his  own  in  the  strict  sense. 
But  it  is  held,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  decided  weight  of  au- 
thority, that  a  judge  who  acts  under  an  unconstitutional  statute 
is  an  officer  de  facto  and  his  judgments  not  void,  so  that  even 
if  the  judge  violates  the  unwritten  constitutional  rule  for- 
bidding a  man  from  acting  as  a  judge  in  his  own  cause,  he  is  no 
less  a  judge  de  facto  than  one  who  acts  under  an  unconstitu- 
tional statute.  The  salutary  considerations  of  public  policy  and 
the  sound  reasons  which  support  the  rule  that  the  judge  is 
an  officer  dc  facto  although  he  acts  under  an  absolutely  void 
statute,  support  the  view  that  so,  also,  is  the  judge  who  vio- 
lates the  unwritten  constitutional  prohibition.  Another  rea- 
son for  our  view  is  this:  Where  there  is  a  question  as  to 
whether  the  judge  is  or  is  not  disqualified,  a  judicial  question  is 
presented  for  decision,  and  the  decision,  although  errone- 
ous, ought  to  prevail  against  a  collateral  assault.  This  con- 
clusion is  fortified  by  analogous  cases,  and  rests  on  general 
principles  of  unquestionable  soundness.  It  is  supported  by 
the  cases  which  hold  that  when  a  court  determines  that  facts 
essential  to  its  jurisdiction  exist,  its  judgment  can  not  be  col- 
laterally impeached,  and  so  it  is  by  the  cases  which  adjudge 
that  the  decision  of  a  court  upon  its  own  organization  can  only 
be  annulled  by  a  direct  attack. 

§  214.  Questioning,  on  appeal,  the  right  of  a  judge  to  act. — 

It  is  consistent  with  principle  and  in  harmony  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  adjudged  cases  to  affirm  that  the  right  of  a  judge 
to  hear  and  determine  a  particular  cause  may  be  questioned  on 
appeal,  provided  the  proper  objection  is  made  in  the  court  of 
original  jurisdiction,  and  provided  the  title  of  the  officer  is  not 
brought  into  question.  There  is  an  essential  difference  be- 
tween cases  where  the  question  is  whether  there  is  a  disqualify- 


§  215  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  223 

ing  interest  and  cases  where  the  question  is  as  to  the  legality 
or  regularit}^  of  the  election  or  appointment  of  the  judge.  The 
title  to  the  office  where  there  is  color  of  title  can  not  be  tried, 
even  on  a  direct  appeal;  but  the  question  whether  the  judge 
has  correctly  or  erroneously  decided  the  question  of  his  quali- 
fication to  try  the  particular  case  may  be  determined  on  appeal. 
Where  the  title  to  the  office  is  brought  in  question,  all  cases 
and  all  parties  in  the  court  are  affected,  and  so,  also,  is  the 
public;  but  where  the  question  is  one  of  qualification  to  try  a 
particular  case,  only  the  parties  to  that  case  are  affected.  In 
the  one  class  of  cases  the  right  involved  is  a  general  one, 
whereas  in  the  other  class  only  particular  persons  are  interested, 
and  no  public  or  general  rights  are  involved.  So,  too,  where 
it  is  sought  to  question  the  title  of  the  judge,  his  right  to  the 
office  is  assailed;  but  where  the  objection  is  as  to  his  qualification 
to  sit  in  a  particular  case,  nothing  more  is  done  than  to  challenge 
his  right  to  act  in  that  one  case.  His  official  character  is  not 
put  in  issue.  All  that  is  done  is  to  question  his  right  to  act 
in  a  specific  matter,  so  that  his  right  to  the  office  is  not  only 
not  challenged,  but  conceded.  The  effect  of  the  objection  is  to 
concede  that  he  is  rightfully  in  office,  but  that  for  reasons  pecu- 
liar to  the  particular  case  he  is  not  qualified  to  exercise  the 
powers  and  functions  of  his  office. 

§  215.  Attack  by  appeal  not  collateral. — The  qualification 
of  a  judge  to  sit  in  a  particular  case  is  a  matter  for  his  decision 
in  that  case,  and  hence  his  decision  on  the  question  is  a  ruling 
in  the  case.  As  it  is  a  ruling  in  the  case,  it  is  reviewable  on 
appeal  or  writ  of  error.  In  presenting  the  ruling  for  review, 
no  collateral  attack  is  made  upon  the  title  to  the  office  of  the 
judge.  No  such  question  can  arise,  for,  as  w^e  have  seen,  the 
objection  to  his  qualification  to  sit  in  the  particular  case  im- 
pliedly and  necessarily  affirms  that  he  is  the  judge  dejiire.  One 
who  objects  upon  a  specific  ground  concedes  that  no  other 
grounds  of  objection  exist. 

§  216.   Disqualification  because  of  relationship. — At  com- 


224 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§217 


mon  law  relationship  was  not,  of  itself,  a  disqualification,  but 
it  is  generally  made  a  cause  of  disqualification  by  statute.^  The 
degree  of  kinship  or  relationship  which  will  disqualify  is  so 
much  a  matter  of  statutory  regulation  that  no  general  rule  can 
be  stated.  We  refer  to  the  decided  cases  upon  the  subject 
without  comment."'^ 

§  217.  Various  statutory  disqualifications. — Many  of  the 
State  statutes  prohibit  one  who  has  been  of  counsel  from  sit- 
ting as  judge,  and  where  such  statutes  exist  the  objection,  sea- 
sonably made,  properly  presented  on  appeal  and  well  founded, 
is  fatal  to  the  right  of  the  judge  to  proceed  in  the  case.^  In 
other  States  the  statutes  provide  that  bias  or  prejudice  shall 
constitute  a  disqualification.^     But  the  statutes,  while  in  sub- 


'  Commonwealth  r\Reed,lGray,  472; 
Commonwealth  v.  Ryan,  5  Mass.  90. 
But  see  Ames  v.  The  Port  Huron,  etc., 
Co.,  11  Mich.  149 ;  State  v.  Crane,  36  N. 
J.  L.  394;  Lanfear  v.  Mayor,  4  La.  97, 
S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  477 ;  Place  v.  Manu- 
facturing, etc., Co.,  28  Barb.503 ;  Pierce 
V.  Sheldon,  13  Johns.  491. 

»  Fowler  v.  Byers,  16  Ark.  196;  Un- 
derbill v.  Dennis,  9  Paige,  202;  Aid- 
rich  Appellant,  110  Mass.  189;  Ed- 
wards?;. Russell,  21  Wend.  64;  Foot 
V.  Morgan,  1  Hill,  654;  Reed  v.  New- 
comb,  62  Vt.  75,  19  Atl.  R.  367;  In  re 
Marston,  79  Me.  25, 3  N.  E.601 ;  Guerra 
V.  Burton,  23  Cal.  592 ;  Sanborn  v.  Fel- 
lows, 22  N.  H.  473;  Lines  v.  Darden, 
6  Fla.  37;  Winchester  v.  Hinsdale,  12 
Conn.  88;  Bayard  v.  McLane,  3  Harr. 
(Del.)  139 ;  Higbe  v.  Leonard,  1  Denio, 
186;  Schultzer.  McLeary,  73 Texas,  92, 
S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  924 ;  Horton  v.  How- 
ard, 79  Mich.  642,  44  N.  W.  R.  1112; 
Patrick  v.  Crowe,  15  Colo.  543,  S.  C.  25 
Pac.  R.  985 ;  Salm  v.  State,  89  Ala.  56, 
S.  C.  8  S.  R.  66. 

=>  Littrell  i^.Wilcox,  U  Mont.  77,  S.  C. 
27  Pac.  R.  394  ;  Tampa,  etc.,  v.  Tampa 
Co.    (Fla.),    17  Law.  R.   Anno.   681; 


Owings  V.  Gibson,  2  A.  K.  Marsh 
(Ky.),  517;  Bryan  v.  Austin,  10  La. 
Ann.  612;  Denn  v.  Tatem,  1  N.  J.  L. 
164;  State  v.  Collins,  5  Wis.  339; 
Jewett  V.  Miller,  12  Iowa,  85 ;  Nugent 
V.  Stark,  34  La.  628 ;  Slaven  v.  Wheeler, 
58  Tex.  23;  Carrington  v.  Andrews, 
12  Abb.  Pr.  348 ;  Chambers  v.  Hodges, 
23  Texas,  104;  Curtis  v.  Wilcox,  74 
Mich.  69,  41  N.  W.  R.  863 ;  East  Rome 
Town  V.  Cothran,  81  Ga.  359;  Darling 
V.  Pierce,  15  Hun,  543;  Deadrick  v. 
Watkins,  8  Hump.  (Tenn.)  520; 
Reams  v.  Kearns,  5  Cold.  (Tenn.) ,  217. 
See,  generally.  King  v.  Sapp,  66  Tex. 
519,  S.  C.  2  S.  W.  R.  573 ;  Wilks  v.  State, 
27  Texas  App.  381,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R. 
415;  Hobbs  v.  Campbell,  79  Texas, 
360,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  282;  State  v. 
Burks,  82  Texas,  584,  S.  C.  18  S.  W. 
R.  662;  Woodfolk  v.  State,  85  Ga.  69, 
S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R.  814;  Carr  v.  Fife,  44 
Fed.  R.  713. 

*  Barnes  v.  McMullins,  78  Mo.  260; 
Turner  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Metcf. 
(Ky.)  619;  States.  Shipman,  93  Mo. 
147,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  97 ;  State  v.  Chap- 
man (S.  Dak.),  47  N.  W.  R.  411  ;  State 
V.  Rodway    (S.  Dak.),   47  N.  W.  R. 


§  218  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  225 

stance  very  similar,  differ  so  much  in  detail  and  phraseology 
that  we  shall  not  attempt  to  consider  the  suhject  at  length.  It 
may  he  said  generally  that  the  fact  that  a  judge  has  presided 
at  a  former  trial,  or  has,  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings,  ex- 
pressed an  opinion,  does  not  authorize  the  conclusion  that  bias 
or  prejudice  exists  in  his  mind.^ 

§  218.  Necessity  may  compel  disqualified  ]udg(;  to  act. — 
In  accordance  with  the  principle  which  rules  in  many  depart- 
ments of  jurisprudence,  necessity  may  compel  a  disqualified 
judge  to  hear  and  decide  a  cause.  All  rules,  statutory  or  com- 
mon law,  yield  to  necessity.  Where  no  other  judge  can  be 
obtained,  the  disqualified  judge  must  act,  no  matter  how  un- 
pleasant the  duty  may  be.^ 

§  219.  Change  of  judge. — Where  the  statute  so  provides,  it 
is  the  imperative  duty  of  a  judge  to  call  in  another  judge,  pro- 
vided the  objections  to  his  competency  are  properly  and  oppor- 
tunely made.  In  some  of  the  States  the  specific  facts  constitut- 
ing the  objections  must  be  stated;  in  others,  it  is  sufficient  to 
state  the  ground  of  objection  in  the  general  language  of  the 
statute.  It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  say  that  the 
statutory  requirements  must  be  substantially  complied  with,  as 
we  have  elsewhere  considered  this  phase  of  the  subject.^ 

§  220.   Power  to  appoint  special  Judges— Generally. — The 

rule  that  judicial  power  can  not  be  delegated  is  not  violated  by 
the  appointment  of  a  special  judge,  for  in  such  a  case  there  is 
no  delegation  of  authority.  The  special  judge  is  substituted 
for  the  regular  judge,  and  for  the  occasion  or  case  occupies  the 
position  of  a  judge  in  all  that  the  term  implies.'*     There  can, 

1061 ;  McCauley  v.  Weller,  12  Cal.  500 ;  Cases,  429 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Ryan, 
Russell  V.  Russell  (Ky.),  12  S.  W.  R.  5  Mass.  00;  Matter  of  Ryers,  72  N. 
709;  Cooper  r.  Brewster,  1  Minn.  94;  Y.  1,  S.  C.  28  Am.  R.  88.  See,  gen- 
People  V.  Williams,  24  Cal.  31.  erally,    Bessett  v.   Governor,    11   Ga. 

'Pearson  r.  Hopkins,  2  N.J.  L.  194;  207;    Commonwealth    v.  Brown,    147 

Fry  V.  Bennett,  28   N.   Y.  324;    Mc-  Mass.  585,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  730. 

Dowell  V.  Van  Deusen,  12  Johns.  356;  ^  Tost,  Change  of  Venue. 

Bank  of  North   America  v.  Fitzsim-  «  Bush  v.  Lisle,  86  Ky.  504,  S.  C.  6S. 

ons,  2  Binn.  (Pa.)  454.  AV.  R.330;  State  v.  Sneed  (Mo.),  4  S. 

'Thellusson  v.  Rendlesham,  7  II.  L.  W^  R.  888. 

15 


226  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  220 

however,  be  no  special  judge  effectively  appointed  unless  au- 
thorized by  a  valid  statute.  A  judge  has  no  inherent  power  to 
appoint  a  substitute,  but  he  maybe  authorized  to  do  so  by  con- 
stitutional legislation.  A  special  judge  is  one  who  takes  the 
place  of  the  regular  judge  under  a  temporary  appointment,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  give  validity  to  his  acts,  as  against  an  attack 
seasonably  and  appropriately  made,  that  he  should  be  appointed 
in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,  but  if  there  is  power  to  appoint, 
the  acts  of  a  special  judge  can  not,  it  is  well  agreed,  be  success- 
fully questioned  by  a  collateral  attack.^  Where  there  is  an 
absolute  lack  of  power  to  appoint  a  special  or  substitute  judge, 
that  is,  where  there  is  no  law  authorizing,  or  assuming  to  au- 
thorize,^ the  appointment  of  such  a  judge,  there  is  reason  for 
holding  void  the  proceedings  conducted  by  him."^  In  such  a 
case  the  record  affirmatively  shows  (if  it  is  made  to  speak  the 
truth)  that  the  person  who  assumed  to  act  as  judge  was  a  mere 
lisurper  or  a  naked  intruder,  so  that  it  carries  on  its  face  evi- 
dence of  its  own  invalidity.  The  question,  in  such  a  case,  is 
I  really  one  of  power  or  no   power,  and   it  is  to  be  determined 

1 

I     1  Hunter  v.  Ferguson,  13  Kan.  462,  opinion  that  although  the  act  of  the 

465;  Guilbeau  U.Cormier, 32 La.  Ann.  legislature  may  be  unconstitutional, 

930;  State  v.  Murdock,  86  Ind.  124;  still  there  may  be  a  judge  de/ac<o,  and 

Adams  u.  Go  wan,  89  I  nd.  358 ;  Cargar  if  there  is  such  a  judge  the  proceed- 

V.  Fee,  119  Ind.  536.     See  ante,  §§  208,  ings  are  not  void  but,  at  most,  are  only 

213.     See,  also,  upon  the  general  sub-  voidable.     Thus,  for  example,  if  the 

ject,  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burkett,  42  legislature  should  attempt  to  authorize 

Ala.  83 ;  Holly  v.  Carson,  39  Ala.  345 ;  the  appointment  of  special  judges,  and 

State  V.  Lewis,  107  N.  C.  967,  S.  C.  12  the  act  should  be  void  because  of  some 

S.  E.  R.  457;  Grinstead  u.  Buckley,  32  defect  in  its  title,  one  who  acted  as 

Miss.  148;  Henderson  v.  Pope,  39  Ga.  special  judge  pursuant  to  an  appoint- 

';361:    People  v.   Petty,  32  Hun,  443;  ment  under  the  unconstitutional  stat- 

State  V.  Williams,  14  W.Va.  851 ;  Bear  ute  would  be  a  judge  de  facto. 

V.  Cohen,  65  N.C.  511;  Clark  v.  Rugg,  »  Hoaglandu.  Creed,81 111.506;  State 

,20Fla.  861;  People  v.  Gallagher,  75  w.  Fritz,  27  La.  Ann.  689.    See  Baisley 

Mich.  512 ;  Williams  v.  Benet,  35  S.  C.  v.  Baisley,  15  Ore.  183,  S.  C.  13  Pac.  R. 

150,  S.  C.  14  Lawy.  Rep.  Anno.  825, 14  888;  Winchester  v.  Ayres,  4  Greene 

S.  E.  R.  311;  Granite  Mountain,  etc.,  (Iowa),  104;  Brown  v.  Buzan,  24  Ind. 

Co.  V.  Durfee,  11  Mont.222,  S.C.  27  Pac.  194 ;    Harper  v.  Jacobs,  51  Mo.  296 ; 

R.  919.  Smith  v.  Haworth,  53  Mo.  88 ;  Ex  parte 

*  We  use  the  term  "  assuming  to  au-  Amos,  51  Ala.  57. 
thorize"   because  we  incline  to  the 


§  221  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  227 

upon  the  law  and  the  record  without  resort  to  extrinsic  evi- 
dence. No  principle  is  violated  in  holding  that  the  acts  of  one 
who  assumes  to  be  a  special  judge  may  be  collaterally  im- 
peached, where,  as  matter  of  law,  it  is  impossible  that  there 
can  be  a  special  or  substitute  judge,  for,  if  it  is  impossible  that 
there  can  be  such  a  judicial  oflicer  there  can  be  no  court.  But 
where  there  is  a  law  assuming  to  grant  power  to  create  or  ap- 
point special  judges,  it  can  not  be  said  that  it  is  impossible  that 
a  person  exercising  the  functions  of  special  judge  may  not  be 
acting  rightfully  and  lawfully,  and,  as  the  presumption  is  in 
favor  of  the  validity  and  rightfulness  of  his  acts,^  a  collateral 
assault  upon  them  must  be  unavailing. 

§221.  Special  Judges. — As  indicated  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tion, a  special  judge  is  one  who,  for  the  time,  takes  the  place 
of  the  regularly  appointed  or  elected  judge,  and,  while  acting 
under  the  appointment,  is  a  judge  with  all  the  powers  of  the 
regular  judge. ^  A  special  judge  does  not  fill  a  vacancy  in  the 
office  of  judge,  nor  is  he  a  judge  except  for  the  time  and  occa- 
sion embraced  in  his  appointment.^  A  special  judge  may  be 
appointed  to  hold  special,  adjourned,  or  even  general,  terms 
of  court,  or  he  may  be  called  in  to  try  a  special  case  or  partic- 
ular cases.  A  special  judge  may,  where  the  statute  so  pro- 
vides, be  appointed  by  the  regular  judge  upon  his  own  volition, 
but  the  appointment  is  usually  made  upon  the  application  of  a 
party  to  the  suit  or  action.  To  give  full  effectiveness  and  force 
to  the  appointment  of  a  special  judge  the  provisions  of  the  law 
should   be  substantially   followed.     Where   a   statute   enacted 

^Post,  §  227.  ular  judge  goes  out  when  the  special 

^  Post,  §228.  judge  comes  in.     Some  of  the  cases 

'  It  necessarily  follows  that  a  special  press  this  general  doctrine  ven,' far. 

judge  is  not  a  duplicate  judge;  he  is  a  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Beattie,  38  La.  Ann. 

temiwrary  odiccr,  occupying  the  place  452;  Cox  r.  State,  30  Kan.  202;  lure 

of   the  permauent   judge.      Where  a  :Mil]ington,  24  Kan.  214;  Tarpenning 

special   judge   is   called,   the   regular  v.  Cannon,  2S  Kan.  OOo  ;  ITaverly,  etc., 

judge  can  not  act  with  him,  for  the  Co.  r.  Ilowcutt.  6  Colo.  574 ;  Clark  r. 

whole  theory  of  the  appointment  of  Rugg,  20  Fla.  801 ;  Bear  v.  Cohen,  65 

special  judges  is  that  of  substitution.  N.  C.  511. 
For  the  time  and  the  occasion  the  reg- 


228  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  221 

under  constitutional  warrant  provides  for  the  appointment  of 
a  special  judge,  or  judge  pro  tempore,  such  an  appointment  is 
valid,  and  irregularities  in  the  appointment  do  not  render  such 
appointment  void,  although  if  objections  are  seasonably  inter- 
posed, such  irregularities  may,  if  material,  constitute  such 
error  as  would  require  a  reversal  upon  appeal.^  The  courts, 
however,  generally  incline  to  the  doctrine  that  even  upon  a 
direct  attack  irregularities  will  be  disregarded  unless  they  are 
of  a  material  and  influential  character,^  and  it  is  generally  held 
that  objections  must  be  promptly  interposed  or  they  will  be 
deemed  waived.^  Where,  however,  there  is  no  constitutional 
authority  to  enact  statutes  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
special  judges,  there  can,  as  we  have  said,  be  no  court  held  by 
one  who  assumes  the  functions  of  a  special  judge,  since  there 
can  be  no  color  or  claim  of  right  to  the  office.*  We  think  there 
is  a  difference  between  an  entire  lack  of  legislative  authority 
and  an  ineffective  effort  to  exercise  authority.  We  believe  that 
the  acts  of  a  special  judge  would  not  be  void  if  there  was  gen- 
eral legislative  authority  to  enact  the  statute,  although  the 
statute  might  be  invalid  because  of  a  violation  of  some  provis- 

1  Holden  v.  Haserodt  (S.  D.),  S.  C.  (Iowa),  458;  Hyllis  v.  State,  45  Ark. 

4nN.W.  R  97;  Munzesheimer  v.  Fair-  478;    Herbster  v.  State,  80  Ind.  484; 

banks,  82  Tex.  351,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  McClure  v.  State,  77  Ind.  287;  Cobb 

697.  V.  People,  84  111.  511;  Bishop  v.  Nel- 

» State  V.  Sachs,  3  Wash.  496,  S.  C.  son,  83  111.  601.     But  see  Kennedy  v. 

29  Pac.  R.  446;  State  v.  Gamble,  108  Commonwealth,  78  Ky.  447;  Smith  v. 

Mo.  500,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  1111 ;  State  Trisbie,  7  Iowa,  486.  Some  of  the  cases 

V.  Gilmore,  110  Mo.  1,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  cited,  as  we  believe,  go  much  beyond 

R.  218.   See,  generally,  Haley  v.  Jump  the  true  line,  for  they  affirm  that  an 

River,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Wis.  412,  S.  C.  51  irregular  or  defective  exercise  of  the 

N.W.  R.  321 ;  State  v.  Sanders,  106  Mo.  power  to  appoint  renders  the  appoint- 

188,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  223.  ment  void.    This,  we  venture  to  say, 

^  Lillie  V.  Trentman,  130  Ind.  16,  S.  is  a  radical  error,  for,  if  the  p-eneral 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  405.  power  of  appointment  exists,  error  in 

*  It  is  held  in  some  of  the  cavses  that  the  mode  of  exercising  it  may  render 

where  there   is   no  right  to  appoint,  the  appointment  voidable,  but  it  does 

consent  of  parties  will  not  validate  the  not  make  it  a  nullity.    The  acts  of  a 

acts  of  the  person  who  assumes  to  ex-  special  judge,  where  there  is  general 

ercise  the  functions  of  a  special  judge,  power  to  api)oint,  must,  on  principle, 

Haverly  Mining  Co.   v.   Howcutt,   6  be  secure  against  a  collateral  attack. 
Colo.  574 ;  Wright  v.  Boon,  2  Greene 


§  222  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  229 

ion  regarding  the  enactment  of  laws,  as,  for  instance,  a  viola- 
tion of  the  provision  inhibiting  the  enactment  of  special  laws. 
We  have  no  doubt  that  the  acts  of  a  special  judge  who  assumed 
to  act  under  an  unconstitutional  statute  would  be  voidable, 
and,  because  voidable,  set  aside  on  appeal;  but  we  do  not  be- 
lieve they  would  be  absolutely  void.  It  seems  to  us  that  some 
of  the  courts  have  not  been  mindful  of  the  difference  between 
void  and  voidable  acts,  and  have  fallen  into  error. 

§  222.  Who  appoints  Judges  pro  tempore. — The  general 
practice  is  for  the  regularly  elected  judge  to  make  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  special  judge,  but  some  of  the  State  statutes  make 
different  provisions,  and,  of  course,  such  provisions  are  of  con- 
trolling force.  Where  the  regular  judge  is  disqualified  he  may, 
although  objection  is  made  because  of  his  disqualification,  select 
the  judge  pro  tempore.  Where  there  is  no  constitution  or  stat- 
utory provision  to  the  contrary,  the  regular  judge  is  the  proper 
person  to  name  the  special  judge,  and  enter  such  orders  as  are 
necessary  to  procure  his  attendance.^ 

§  223.  Determination  of  the  necessity  for  appointing  special 
judge. — The  statutes  of  many  of  the  States  provide  that  when 
a  judge  is  unable  because  of  illness  or  the  like  to  hold  court, 
he  may  call  in  a  special  judge,  and  some  of  them  provide  that 
in  case  the  judge  is  incapacitated  or  disqualified  he  may  ap- 
point a  special  judge  to  try  a  particular  case  or  cases.  It  is 
clear  that  in  all  such  jurisdictions  a  comprehensive  discretion 
is  conferred  upon  the  judge;  and  his  decision  in  appointing  a 
substitute  is  not  subject  to  review.^  The  statutes  to  which  we 
refer  are  those  which  leave  the  matter  to  the  judge  himself  and 
require  no  application  from  the  parties.  Where  the  law  gives 
the  party  a  right  to  a  change  upon  prescribed  terms,  quite  a 

'Granite,   etc.,  Co.    p.    Durfee,    11  Ind.  395;  Firgel  r.  State,  So  Ind.  580 ; 

Mont.  222,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  919.  State    v.    Judge,    38    La.    Ann.    452; 

»  Stater.  Gilmore,  110  Mo.  1,  S.  C.  19  Schultze  r.  McLeary,  73  Texas,  92,  S. 

S.W.R.218;  State  r.Murdock,  86  Ind.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  924;  Walters  v.  Walt- 

124, 128 ;  Fassinow  r.  State,  89  Ind.  235.  ers,  117  Ind.  247. 
See,  generally,  Zenker  v.  Cowan,  84 


230  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  224 

different  question  is  presented,  tor  a  compliance  with  the  stat- 
ute makes  it  the  imperative  duty  of  the  judge  to  grant  the 
cliange.^  If  the  power  to  order  a  change  is  entirely  discre- 
tionary, there  is  no  reason  why  the  causes  which  influenced 
the  judge  in  ordering  the  change  should  ai:)pear  of  record.^ 
We  know  that  in  some  of  the  cases  a  different  doctrine  is  de- 
clared,^ but  we  are  persuaded  that  these  cases  are  not  well  de- 
cided. As  the  matter  is  one  of  discretion  there  can  be  no  review 
or  revision,  so  that  there  can  not  be  said  to  be  material  error, 
and  if  there  can  be  no  error,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  record 
should  show  upon  what  grounds  the  judge  acted  in  calling  in  a 
substitute.  The  presumption  is  that  all  acts  are  lawfully  and 
regularly  done,*  and  this  familiar  doctrine  requires  it  to  be  held 
that  sufficient  reasons  existed  for  appointing  a  special  judge. 

§  224.  Mode  of  appointing  special  Judges. — It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  do  more  than  say  that  where  the  law  prescribes  the 
mode  in  which  special  judges  shall  be  appointed  the  law  must 
be  obeyed  or  the  appointment  will  not  stand  against  a  direct 
attack  properly  and  opportunely  made.^  We  have  already 
spoken  of  the  difference  between  cases  where  the  question  is 
as  to  the  existence  of  the  power  to  appoint  and  cases  where  the 
question  is  as  to  the  mode  of  exercising  that  power,  and  we 
shall  not  go  over  that  ground  again  but  content  ourselves  with 
a  bare  reference  to  the  difference  between  the  two  classes  of 


»  State  V.  Bacon,  107  Mo.  627,  S.  C 
18  S.W.  R.  19;  Hamilton  v.  Territory 
1  Wyo.  Ter.  131 ;  Shoemakers.  Smith 


74  Ind.  71 ;  Burkett  v.  Holman,  104    So.  R.  246. 


Ind.  6;  Krutz  v.  Griffith,  68  Ind.  444 


penny  v.  City  of  Sedalia,  57  Mo. 


'Leonard    v.    Blair,    59   Ind.    510; 
Rogers  v.  Beauchamp,  102  Ind.  33. 
3  Roberts  v.  State,  27  Fla.  244,  S.  C.  9 


*  Post,  §  227. 


Heshion  v.  Pressley,  80  Ind.  490;  Cor-        *  State  v.  Phillips,  27  La.  Ann.  663 ; 


State  V.  Frank,  27  La.  Ann.  689;  State 


Barnes  V.  McMullins,  78  Mo.  260.     In  v.  Judge,  9  La.   Ann.   62;    Hayes  u. 

order  to  make  the  duty  to  call  in  a  Hayes,  8  La.  Ann.  468;  Peters.  State, 

special  judge  imperative  the  statute  0  How.  (Miss.),  326.     See,  generally, 

must  be  obeyed  with  reasonable  ex-  Texas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Douglass,  69  Texas, 

actness.  German  Ins.  Co.  v.  Landram,  694,  S.  C.  7  S.  "W.  R.  77 ;  Nichols,  etc., 

88  Ky.  433,  S.  C.  11  S.W.  R.  367 ;  State  Co.  v.  Metzger,  43  Mo.  App.  607 ;  State 

V.  Chantlain,  42  La.  Ann.  718,  S.  C.  7  v.  Beattie,  38  La.  Ann.  452;  Drawdy 

So.  R.  669.  V.  Littlefield,  75  Ga.  215. 


§  225  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  231 

cases.  While  it  is  true,  as  we  have  said,  that  the  law  respect- 
ing the  mode  of  appointing  special  judges  must  be  obeyed,  it 
is,  nevertheless,  sufficient  if  there  is  a  substantial  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law.  Some  of  the  courts  declare 
a  very  rigid  and  technical  doctrine,  but  the  weight  of  modern 
authority  and  the  influence  of  reason  is  against  that  doctrine. 
There  is  no  valid  reason  for  allowing  a  departure  from  the 
statute  to  overthrow  the  judgment  where  the  departure  is  not 
important  or  does  not  prejudice  the  substantial  rights  of  the 
complaining  party.  It  is  now  generally  held  that  a  harmless 
error,  no  matter  what  may  be  its  character  in  other  respects, 
will  not  avail  to  reverse  a  judgment,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  this  general  doctrine  should  not  apply  to  the  appointment 
of  a  special  judge.  The  courts  have,  as  a  general  rule,  given 
a  very  liberal  construction  to  the  power  conferred  upon  legis- 
latures to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  special  judges,  and 
have  almost  gone  to  the  extent  of  holding  that  the  legislature 
may  make  any  provision  it  chooses  respecting  the  mode  of  ap- 
pointing judges.^ 

§  225.   Procedure  respecting  appointment  of  special  judges. 

— The  form  of  the  application  and  the  facts  which  must  be 
stated  in  order  to  entitle  a  party  to  compel  a  change  of  judges 
are  so  much  a  matter  of  statutory  regulation  that  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  give  in  detail  rules  upon  the  subject.  It  may, 
however,  be  said,  in  general  terms,  that  it  is  necessary  to  make 
such  an  application  as  the  statute  requires  and  file  it  within 
the  time  prescribed  by  the  statute  or  the  rules  of  the  court. 
Where  the  court  on  its  own  motion  directs  a  change  of  judge, 
the  record,  in  order  to  be  strictly  accurate,  should  show  affirm- 
atively the  reasons  which  influenced  the  court  in  ordering  the 
change,  but  we  do  not  regard  a  failure  to  show  such  reasons  as 
fatal  to  the  change.  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  the  record 
must  affirmatively  show  the  reasons  for  the  change  or  the  order 

>  Smith  r.  Blakeman,  8  Bush  (Ky.),  Kennedy  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Ky. 
476;  Ligan  v.  State,  3  Heisk.  (Tenn.),  447;  Riidd  i\  Woolfolk,  4  Bush  (Ky.), 
159;  State  >•.  Williams,  14  W.Va.  8ol  ;     555. 


232 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


22G 


directing  it  will  be  deemed  erroneous/  but  this  doctrine  we 
believe  to  be  contrary  to  principle  and  opposed  to  rules  de- 
clared and  enforced  again  and  again  in  analogous  cases.  We 
regard  the  cases  which  hold  a  liberal  doctrine  as  the  safer  and 
sounder  precedents.'-^  It  is  held  by  some  of  the  courts  that  the 
special  judge  must  have  a  written  certificate  of  his  appointment/^ 
and  there  is  reason  for  this  rule,  but  we  think  that  where  the  par- 
ties appear  without  interposing  any  objection,  and  the  special 
judge  tries  the  case,  the  failure  to  appoint  in  writing  does  not 
invalidate  the  proceedings.  The  better  doctrine  is  that  all  irreg- 
ularities not  going  to  the  merits  are  disregarded,  but  where  they 
affect  the  merits  they  are  available  on  appeal  when  proper  ob- 
jections are  interposed.* 

§  226.  Objections  to  special  Judges. — Where  the  record  proper 
does  not  show  the  objections  to  a  special  judge,  the  rules  of 
practice  require  that  the  objections  should  be  specific  and  be 
put  in  writing.^     The  slovenly  and  unsafe  practice  of  making 


'  In  many  of  the  cases  a  very  strict 
rule  is  declared  and  adhered  to ;  much 
stricter,  in  our  judgment,  than  the  law 
authorizes.  Thompson  v.  State,  9 Tex. 
App.  301;  Worsham  v.  Murchison,  66 
Ga.  715 ;  In  re  Lynch,  9  Abb.  N.  Cases, 
69 ;  In  re  Application  of  Judges,  64  Pa. 
St.  33;  Ruddt;.Woolfolk,4Bush(Ky.), 
555.  See,  generally,  Slone  v.  Slone,  2 
Met.  (Ky.),  339. 

*  Wyers  v.  State,  21  Texas  App.  448 
Hughes  V.  Commonwealth,  89  Ky.  227 
S.  C.  12  S.W.  R.  269 ;  State  v.  Gamble 
108  Mo.  500,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  1111 
Wood  V.  Franklin,  97  Ind.  117.     See 
generally,  Taylor  v.  Bosworth,  1  Ind 
App.  54;  Board  v.  Courtney,  105  Ind 
311;  Rubush  v.   State,   112  Ind.  107 
Powell  V.  Powell,  104  Ind.  18,  29 ;  Van- 
dever  v.  Vandever,  3  Met.  (Ky.),  187 ; 
Salter  v.  Salter,  6  Bush  (Ky.),  624; 
Evans  v.  State,  56  Ind.  459 ;  Fawcett  v. 
State,  71  Ind.  590. 

»  Kennedy  v.  State,  53  Ind.  542, 544 ; 


Thompson  v.  State,  9  Texas  App.  301. 
See  authorities  cited.  Elliott's  Ap- 
pellate Procedure,  §§  770,  782. 

*  Denning  V.  Norris,  2  Lev.  243 ;  An- 
drews V.  Linton,  2  Ld.  Raymond,  884; 
Weeks  v.  Ellis,  2  Barb.  320 ;  Grant  v. 
Holmes,  75  Mo.  109;  Caskey  v.  City 
of  Greensburgh,  78  Ind.  233 ;  Pepie  v. 
Lachenmeyer,  45  N.  Y.  27. 

*  Where  the  record  does  not  show, 
or  is  not  made  to  show,  the  specific 
objections  to  a  special  judge,  no  ques- 
tion is  presented  for  consideration  on 
appeal.  Good  practice  requires  that 
objections  should  be  specific  since  this 
is  necessary  to  fully  inform  the  trial 
court  of  the  nature  of  the  questions 
presented  and  also  to  prevent  parties 
from  presenting  one  question  in  the 
court  of  original  jurisdiction  and  an- 
other question  on  appeal.  Where  the 
case  is  one  in  which  there  is  an  ab- 
solute absence  of  power  to  appoint  a 
special  judge,  the  question  of  his  com- 


§  226  JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS.  233 

objections  orally  is  not  one  to  be  encouraged  in  any  part  of  a 
judicial  proceeding,  except  in  the  course  of  the  trial,  where 
necessity  excuses,  and  is  certainly  not  allowable  where  objec- 
tions are  made  to  one  who  occupies  the  position  of  a  judge. 
Objections  to  the  competency  of  a  special  judge  should  be 
promptly  made.  If  not  made  with  reasonable  promptness  they 
ire  regarded  as  waived.^  The  rules  we  have  just  stated  are 
sustained  by  the  well  considered  cases,  but  there  are  cases, 
which  seem  to  us  not  well  decided,  which  declare  a  different 
doctrine.  The  principle  that  objections  not  made  at  the  earliest 
practicable  opportunity  are  deemed  waived  is  recognized  almost 
everywhere  throughout  the  law,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  for 
denying  its  application  to  such  matters  as  the  appointment  and 
qualification  of  special  judges,  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  ap- 
pears to  us  to  be  stronger  reasons  for  applying  the  principle  to 
such  matters  than  there  is  for  applying  it  to  matters  of  ordi- 
nary procedure.  The  true  rule  is  to  require  objections  to  be 
made  before  entering  upon  the  trial. ^  If  the  objections  are  not 
then  known  and  could  not  have  been  discovered  by  the  exer- 
cise of  reasonable  care  and  diligence  the  party  may,  upon  a 
proper  showing,  be  excused  for  delaying  his  objections;  but 
where  no  cause  for  delay  is  shown  principle  requires  it  to  be 


petency  may  be  made  at  any  time,  Kentucky,   etc.,   v.   Kenney,   82  Ky. 

since,  as  we  have  elsov/here  shown,  154;  Tucker  tJ.  Allen,  47  Mo.  488.     In 

the  question  is  one  of  law  purely.  the  case  of  Radford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East 

'  Stearns  v.  Wright,  51  N.  H.  600;  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  (Tenn.),  21  S.W. 

PeeV)les  i\  Rand,  43  N.  H.  337;  Moses  R.  329,  the  court  holds  that  where  a 

V.  Julian,  45  N.  H.  52;  State  v.  Whit-  person   acts  as  judge  by  consent  of 

ney,  7  Ore.  386 ;  State  v.  Voorhies,  41  parties,  his  decision  is  not  void  be- 

La.  Ann.  567,  S.  C.6  So.  R.  826;  Bow-  cause  he  did  not  act  in  the  capacity  of 

•  n  V.  Swander,  121  Ind.  164;  Hayes  v.  a  judge.     This  we  think  is  a  ruling  of 

Sykes,  120  Ind.   180;  Smurr  i\  State,  doubtful   soundness.     If  a  person  is 

10")  Ind.  125;  Schlungger  f>.  State,  113  called  in  as  a  special  judge  he  acts  as 

Ind.   295;    Greenwood   v.   State,   116  a  judge  and  not  as  an  arbitrator.    His 

Ind.  485,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  333;  State  judgments  are  those  of  a  court  from 

V.  Sachs.  3  Wash.  691,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  wliirh  writs  of  error   will  He  or   ap- 

446;    Miller  p.    Burger,    2   Ind.    337;  peals  may  be  prosecuted. 

Grant  v.  Holmes,  75  Mo.  109 ;  Harper  "^  Dolan  v.  Church,  1  Wyo.  187 ;  State 

V.  Jacobs,  51  Mo.  296.     See,  generally,  v.  Greenwade,  72  Mo.  298. 


234 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  227 


held  that  delay  until  after  the  trial  begins  is  a  complete  and 
effective  waiver. 

§  227.  Presumption  of  regularity  in  appointment. — The  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  all  reasonable  presumptions  will  be  made  in 
favor  of  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings  of  courts  of  general 
jurisdiction.^  There  is  sound  reason  for  this  rule.  The  gen- 
eral doctrine  is  that  all  official  acts  are  presumed  to  be  right- 
fully performed,  and  the  force  of  this  doctrine  is  intensified 
when  applied  to  judges,  for  they  are  chosen  because  of  their 
learning  and  fitness,  they  hear  argument,  are  assisted  by  coun- 
sel, act  impartially  and  after  due  deliberation.  It  is,  therefore, 
safe  to  affirm,  notwithstanding  the  intimations  in  some  of  the 
cases  to  the  contrary, ^  that  where  there  is  a  general  power  to 
appoint  special  judges,  the  presumption  is  that  the  appoint- 
ment is  valid  and  the  appointee  competent.^  Any  other  con- 
clusion would  require  it  to  be  affirmed  that  the  judge  who  calls 


'  In  the  case  of  Tracey  v.  Altmyer, 
46  N.  Y.  598,  the  court  stated  the  rule 
in  these  words:  "It  is  incumbent  up- 
on a  party  seeking  the  reversal  of  a 
judgment  or  order  to  show  that  an  er- 
ror was  committed  to  his  prejudice. 
It  is  not  sutficient  to  show  that  it  may 
have  been  committed.  The  latter  will 
not  overcome  the  presumption  that  all 
things  have  been  transacted  correctly, 
until  the  contrary  appears."  This  is, 
perhaps,  a  stronger  statement  of  the 
general  doctrine  than  the  cases  war- 
rant, but  it  is  not,  at  all  events,  much 
too  strong,  for  the  decisions  go  to  great 
lengths.  Bishop  r. Village  of  Goshen, 
120  N.  Y.  337,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  720; 
Walters  v.  Tefft,  57  Mich.  329,  S.  C.  24 
N.W.  R.  117;  Sidney,  etc.,  v.  Warsaw 
School  District,  130  Pa.  St.  76,  S.  C.  18 
Atl.  R.  604;  Morisey  v.  Swinson,  104 
N.  C.  555,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  754;  Ken- 
nedy V.  McNichols,  29  Mo.  App.  11  ; 
Pool  V.  Gramling,  88  Ga.  653,  S.  C.  16 
S.  E.  R.-52. 


'  Worsham  v.  Murchison,  66  Ga.  715 ; 
III  re  Application  of  Judges,  64  Pa.  St. 
33;  Brown  v.  Buzan,  24  Ind.  194. 

'  Harper  v.  Jacobs,  51  Mo.  296 ;  Hess 
V.  Dean,  66  Texas,  663;  Henning  ^. 
State,  106  Ind.  386,  S.  C.  55  Am.  R. 
756 ;  People  v.  Woodside,  72  111.  407 ; 
Empire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Engley,  14  Colo. 
289,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  452 ;  Reed  v.  Bag- 
ley,  24  Neb.  332;  State  v.  Hosmer,  85 
Mo.  553;  Wood  v.  Franklin,  97  Ind. 
117;  Bates  17.  Sabin  (Vt.),  24  Atl.  R. 
1013;  Bowen  v.  Swander,  121  Ind.  164; 
Cargar  v.  Fee,  119  Ind.  536 ;  Fassinow 
V.  State,  89  Ind.  235;  Hutts  v.  Hutts, 
51  Ind.  581,  584.  See,  generally.  Bow- 
en  V.  Preston,  48  Ind.  367;  Myers  v. 
Mitchell  (S.  Dak.),  46  N.  W.  R.  245; 
Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bird,  116  Ind. 
217,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  837;  McCray  v. 
Humes,  116  Ind.  103,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R. 
500;  Cass  v.  Krimbill,  39  Ind.  357; 
Hanes  v.  Worthington,  14  Ind.  320 


§  228  JUDGES    AND    .lUDK.'IAL    OFFICERS.  235 

in  a  special  judge,  as  well  as  the  person  who  acts  as  special 
judge,  violated  the  law,  and  this  would  be  unreasonable.  The 
reasonable  presumption  is  that  there  is  neither  error  nor  irreg- 
ularity in  the  appointment  nor  lack  of  fitness  in  the  person  ap- 
pointed, and  this  being  true,  the  assailant  who  challenges  the 
validity  of  the  appointment  or  the  competency  of  the  person 
chosen  must  overthrow  this  presumption  by  an  affirmative 
showing,  containing  matters  of  weight  and  importance,  for 
only  matters  of  weight  and  importance  are  entitled  to  consid- 
eration. The  presumption  should  })revail  unless  satisfactorily 
overthrown  by  matters  of  record,  since  to  hold  otherwise  is  to 
assume  that  the  person  who  acted  as  special  judge  was  an  in- 
truder or  usurper,  and  this  can  never  be  assumed  without  do- 
ing violence  to  settled  principles,  unless  the  facts  authorizing 
the  assumption  are  clearly  exhibited  by  the  record.  The  bet- 
ter considered  cases  adjudge  that  where  there  is  a  general  power 
to  appoint  special  judges,  neither  the  regularity  of  the  appoint- 
ment nor  the  competency  of  the  appointee  can  be  successfully 
assailed  in  a  collateral  proceeding.^ 

§  228.    Authority  of  special  Judges. — The  necessary  conclu- 
sion from  the  principle  that  a  s})ecial  judge  is  for  the  time  and 

'  Higby  r.  Ayres,  14  Kan.  331 ;  Lan-  210;    Campbell  r.  Commonwealth,  96 

don  V.  Comet,  62  Mich.  80,  S.  C.  28  N.  Pa.  St.  3-44 ;  Rex  v.  Carlile,  4  C.  &  P. 

W.   R.  788;  Myers  v.   State,  92  Ind.  415.     But  see,  as  holding  a  somewhat 

390,  396;  Holmes  v.  Eason,  76  Ten n.  different  doctrine,  Tampa  St.  Ry.  Co. 

754,760;  Griffin's  Case,  Chase's  Dec,  v.  Tampa,  etc.,  Co.  (Fla.),  11  So.  R. 

.3(11 ;  Matter  of  Griffin,  25  Texas  (Sup-  562;  Abram  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Cr.  App. 

lilement),623 ;  State ?'.Choute,  11  Ohio,  449,  20  S.  W.  R.  987 ;  United  States  v. 

511  ;  Littleton  r.  Smith,  119  Ind.  230,  S.  Alexander,  46  Fed.  R.  728;  Hynds  r. 

C.  21  N.  E.R.886;  Stater.  Miller(:\Io.),  Imboden,5  Ark.  385;  Ferguson  r.  Crit- 

20S.W.R.  243.  See,  generally, Warren  tenden  County,  6  Ark.  479;  Fitzhugh 

r.  Glynn,  37  N.   H.  340;  Fanoher  v.  v.  Custer,  4  Texas,  391,  S.  C.  51  Am. 

Stearns,  61  Vt.  616,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  Dec.  728,  734;  Blackmore  r.  Bank  of 

455 ;  Blackburn  r.  State,  3  Head.  689 ;  the  State,  3  Ark.  309 ;  Stone  v.  Carter, 

Keelerr.  Stead,  56  Conn.  501;  Gallup  13  Gray,  575;   Spradling  v.  State.  17 

V.  Smith,  59  Conn.  354,  S.  C.  12  L.  R.  Ala.  440;  Morgan  r.  Hammett,  23  Wis. 

Anno.  353,  22  Atl.  R.  334;  In  re  Man-  30,  40;  Clark  r.  Lamb,  2  Allen,  396; 

ning,  139  U.  S.   504;  In  re  Manning  Fenelon  r.  Butts,  49  Wis.  342,  S.  C.  5 

(Wis.),  45  N.  W.  R.  26;  In  re  Burke,  N.  W.  R.  784. 
76  Wis.  357;  Dukes  v.  Kowlov,  24  111. 


236  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  228 

occasion  for  which  he  is  appointed  invested  with  all  the  powers 
and  functions  of  a  judge,  is  that  he  may  perform  all  such  acts 
as  the  regular  appointed  or  chosen  judge  might  do  if  he  were 
acting.^  There  is  no  division  of  authority  as  to  the  powers  of  the 
substitute  judge  over  special  matter  given  in  charge  of  the  special 
judge  or  the  specific  occasion  for  which  he  is  appointed.  He  does 
not  act  as  an  arbitrator  or  referee.  When  the  special  judge  is  pres- 
ent and  presiding,  there  is  a  court  in  all  that  the  term  implies,  and 
this  there  could  not  be  if  the  judicial  presence  were  wanting.  The 
rulings  and  decisions  of  a  special  judge  are  judicial  rulings 
and  decisions  from  which  appeals  will  lie,  and  the  records  made 
by  him  are  judicial  records.  His  judgments  constitute  estop- 
pels, and  the  process  issued  for  their  enforcement  has  all  the 
force  of  writs  issued  upon  judgments  rendered  by  the  duly 
elected  or  appointed  judge.  It  is  true  that  where  the  special 
judge  fails  or  refuses  to  act,  the  case,  for  the  purpose  of  ap- 
pointing another  special  judge,  falls  back  to  the  regular  judge, ^ 
but  this  does  not  oppose  the  conclusion  we  have  just  stated, 
for,  where  the  special  judge  will  not  or  can  not  act,  there  is 
only  one  judge,  and  that  is  the  regular  judge.  There  is,  as  is 
sufficiently  obvious  without  discussion,  an  essential  difference 
between  cases  where  the  special  judge  will  not  or  can  not  act 
and  cases  where  he  assumes  the  duties  and  functions  imposed 
upon  him  by  his  appointment.  As  the  special  judge  is  so 
fully  invested  with  judicial  power,  it  is  reasonable  and  logical 
to  conclude,  as  many  of  the  courts  do,  that  for  the  occasion  or 
the  specific  matter  his  authority  is  as  ample  as  that  of  the  reg- 
ular judge.  He  possesses  authority  to  perform  all  incidental 
acts  pertaining  to  the  principal  act  he  is  authorized  to  perform. 

'  Morrissv.  Virginia  Ins.  Co.,  85  Va.  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  595;  Little  Rock,  etc., 

588,  S.  C.  8S.  E.  R.  383 ;  Keith -y.  State,  Co.  v.  Barker,  39  Ark.  491 ;  Cargar  v. 

49  Ark.  439,  446;  Henderson  v.  Pope,  Fee,  119  Ind.  536.    See,  generally,  Sin- 

39  Ga.  361  ;  Vischer  v.  Talbotton,  etc.,  gleton  v.  Pidgeon,  21  Ind.  118 ;  Arnold 

Co.,  34  Ga.  536;  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  v.  Norton,  42  Ind.  248;  Huttsv.  Hutts, 

Burkett,  42  Ala.  83.     See,  also,  Taylor  51  Ind.  581 ;  Stinson  v.  State,  32  Ind. 

V.  Smith,  4  Ga.l33 ;  Walton  v.  Bethune,  124 ;  Glenn  v.  State,46  Ind.368 ;  Green- 

37  Ga.  319 ;  Cox  v.  State,  30  Kan.  202.  up  v.  Crooks,  50  Ind.  410. 

»  State  V.  Millsops,  39  La.  Ann.  793, 


§  228 


JUDGES    AND    JUDICIAL    OFFICERS. 


237 


This  is  but  applying  the  familiar  general  rule  that  the  grant  of 
a  principal  power  carries  with  it  all  the  incidental  powers  nec- 
essary to  its  effective  exercise.  Under  the  doctrine  we  have 
stated  it  is  rightly  held  that  he  may  sign  a  bill  of  exceptions/ 
and  so,  too,  it  is  correctly  adjudged  that  the  authority  of  the 
special  judge  continues  until  the  whole  controversy  has  been 
fully  and  finally  determined.'^  Nor  do  we  believe  that  the  court 
which  holds  that  a  special  judge  may  hear  and  decide  an  ap- 
plication to  vacate  a  judgment  rendered  by  him  unduly  extends 
the  general  doctrine.^  The  doctrine  we  have  stated  fully  au- 
thorizes the  conclusion  that  a  special  judge  may  appoint  re- 
ceivers, master  commissioners  and  other  mini.sters  of  court  in 
the  particular  matter  or  case  over  which  his  authority  extends,* 
and  it  also  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  orders  of  adjourn- 
ment and  the  like  may  be  made  by  him.^ 


*  Holliday  v.  Mansker,  44  Mo.  App. 
465;  Shugart  v.  Miles,  125  Ind.  445; 
Bacon  v.  State,  22  Fla.  4(5;  Cowall  v. 
Altchul,40  Ark.  172;  Watkinsv.  State, 
37  Ark.  370 ;  Lerch  v.  Emmett,  44  Ind. 
331 ;  Matthews  v.  Superior  Court,  (58 
Cal.  638.  It  must  necessarily  follow 
that  where  there  is  authority  to  try 
and  decide  a  case  as  special  judge, 
there  is  the  incidental  authority  to  se- 
cure parties  their  rights  by  making  a 
full  and  complete  record  inasmuch  as 
one  of  the  chief  duties  of  a  judge  is  to 
protect  and  enforce  the  rights  of  par- 
ties litigant,  and  this  he  could  not  do 
if  he  were  denied  the  power  of  making 
a  complete  record. 

'Nebraska,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Maxon,  23 
Neb.  224,  a.  C.  36  N.  W.  R.  492;  Daw- 


son V.  Dawson,  29  Mo.  App.  521 ;  State 
V.  Sneed,  91  Mo.  552,  S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R. 
411. 

.  » Harris  v.  Musgrave,  72  Tex.  18,  S. 
C.  9.  S.W.  R.  90.  See,  generally,  Noff- 
zieger  t;.  Reed,  98  Mo.  87,  S.  C.  11  S.W. 
R.  315 ;  Bowden  v.  Wilson,  21  Fla.  165 ; 
Corbin  v.  Berry,  83  N.  C.  27;  Scherer 
V.  Ingerman,  110  Ind.  428;  Magruder 
V.  Swann,  25  Md.  173 ;  Nugent  v.  Stark, 
34  La.  Ann.  628 ;  State  v.  Judge,  33 
La.  Ann.  1293;  Staser  i-.  Hogan,  120 
Ind.  207. 

♦  Bush  V.  Lisle,  86  Ky.  504,  S.  C.  6  S. 
W.  R.  3.30. 

'Perkins  v.  Hayward,  124  Ind.  445; 
Wilson  V.  Piper,  77  Ind.  437;  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  Co.  p.  Rowe,  17  Ind.  568. 


CHAPTER   VI. 


JURISDICTION 

§  229. 

Determining  the  court  in  which 
to  sue. 

§249. 

230. 

Jurisdiction  of  courts — Defini- 
tion. 

250. 

231. 

Elements  of  jurisdiction. 

251. 

232. 

Source  of  jurisdiction  over  legal 

controversies. 

252. 

233. 

Exercise  of  jurisdiction — In- 

253. 

strumentalities. 

254. 

234. 

Classification. 

235. 

Appellate  jurisdiction. 

255. 

236. 

Original  jurisdiction. 

237. 

Exclusive  jurisdiction  —  C  o  n  - 
current  jurisdiction. 

256. 

238. 

Jurisdiction  of  the  general  sub- 
ject. 

257. 

239. 

Jurisdiction  of  the   particular 
subject. 

258. 

240. 

Distinction   between    jurisdic- 
tion of  a  general  subject  and 
jurisdiction   of   a   particular 

259. 

subject. 

260. 

241. 

Equity  jurisdiction. 

242. 

Law  jurisdiction. 

243. 

Jurisdiction  in  rem. 

261. 

244. 

Jurisdiction  in  personam. 

245. 

Statiis  of  persons  —  Authority 

262. 

to  determine. 

263. 

246. 

Statufi  of  children  —  Authority 

to  adjudge. 

264. 

247. 

Incidental  jurisdiction. 

265. 

248. 

Acquisition    of    jurisdiction  — 

266. 

Conflict  of  authority. 

267. 

268. 


Retaining  jurisdiction  once  ac- 
quired. 

Authority  of  sovereignty  over 
property  within  its  territory. 

Territorial  jurisdiction  of 
courts. 

Local  actions. 

Transitory  actions. 

Domicile  as  affecting  jurisdic- 
tion. 

Presumption  of  jurisdiction — 
Superior  courts. 

Presumption  of  jurisdiction — 
Inferior  tribunals. 

Averment  of  jurisdictional 
facts. 

Judgment  by  default — Pre- 
sumptions. 

Effect  of  assuming  jurisdiction 
— Implied  decision  asserting 
jurisdiction. 

Decision  that  jurisdictional 
facts  exist  —  Conclusiveness 
of. 

Recitals  of  jurisdictional  facts 
or  matters. 

Collateral  proceedings. 

Judicial  proceedings  are  void, 
voidable  and  regular. 

Objections  to  jurisdiction. 

Loss  of  jurisdiction. 

Exceeding  jurisdiction. 

Estoppel  to  deny  jurisdiction. 

Transfer  of  jurisdiction. 


229. 


Determining  the  court  in  which  to  sue.- 

(238) 


-The  suit  or 


§  229 


JURISDICTION. 


239 


action  must  be  brought  in  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction/ 
tliat  is,  a  court  having  authority  over  both  the  particular  case 
and  the  general  class  of  cases  of  which  the  particular  case  is  a 
member.  If  there  is  authority  over  the  general  class  of  cases 
tliere  is  jurisdiction  of  tlie  general  subject/  so  that  if  no  objec- 
tion is  interposed  an  effective  judgment  may  be  rendered,  but 
if  there  is  no  jurisdiction  of  the  general  sul>ject,  then  a  judgment 
is  an  absolute  nullity.'^  We  make  a  distinction  between  juris- 
diction of  a  general  class  of  cases  and  jurisdiction  of  the  subject 
of  a  particular  case.  To  illustrate,  a  court  of  equity  may  have 
authority  over  a  particular  subject,  yet  a  judgment  rendered  by 
a  court  of  law  may  be  valid.'*     We  do  no  more  at  this  place  than 


'  "After  having  determined  which 
court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  next 
follow  these  two  inquiries,  first,  how 
is  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  brought 
into  action?  second,  by  what  princi- 
jiles  is  that  action  governed?" 

»  State  V.  Kansas  City  Court,  105  Mo. 
299,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  415 ;  Posthlewaite 
V.  Ghiselin,  97  Mo.  420,  S.  C.  10  S.  W. 
R.  482;  Turner  v.  Conkey,  132  Ind. 
248,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  777. 

'Lawrence  v.  Wilcock,  11  Ad.  & 
Ell.  941 ;  In  re  Aylmer,  L.  R.,  20  Q.  B. 
Div.  258;  Nazro  v.  Cragin,  3  Dill.  (U. 
S.  C.  C.)  474 ;  Taliferro  v.  Bassett,  3 
Ala.  670;  Jacks  v.  Moore,  33  Ark.  31 ; 
Lindsay  v.  McClelland,  1  Bibb.  (Ky.) 
262;  Banks  r.  Fowler,  3  Litt.  (Ky.) 
332 ;  Vose  ?'.  Morton,  4  Cush.  27 ;  Dod- 
son  V.  Scroggs,  47  ^lo.  285 ;  Wheelock 
V.  Lee,  74  N.  Y.  495 ;  Gladden  v.  El- 
kins,  2  Tyler  (Vt.),  218;  Randolph  v. 
Kinney,  3  Rand (Va.),  304;  Cottrell  v. 
Thompson,  3  Green  (N.  J.)  344  ;  Foley 
r.  People,  Breese  (111.),  57;  Wheeler 
V.  State,  24  Wis.  52. 

*  In  cases  of  the  class  alluded  to  in 
the  text  there  must  be  a  timely  objec- 
tion or  there  will  be  a  waiver.  In  the 
case  of  the  Town  of  Mentz  r.  Cook, 
108  N.  Y.  504,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  541,  it 


was  said :  "The  answer  admitted  the 
authority  of  the  chosen  forum  to  de- 
termine the  issues  presented  and  made 
no  efforts  to  withdraw  them  from  that 
tribunal.  It  appears  to  be  settled  by 
a  very  general  concurrence  of  author- 
ity that  a  defendant  can  not  when  sued 
in  equity  avail  himself  of  the  defense 
that  an  adequate  remedy  at  law  ex- 
ists, unless  he  plead  it  in  his  an- 
swer. Grandin v.  Le  Roy,  2  Paige,  509 ; 
Le  Roy  v.  Piatt,  4  Paige,  77;  Druscott 
V.  King,  6  N.  Y.  147;  Cox  v.  James, 
45  N.Y.  557 ;  Green  v.  Milbank,  3  Abb. 
New  Cases,  138;  Pam  v.  Vilmar,  54 
How.  Pr.  235.  The  rule  proceeds  up- 
on the  basis  that  parties  may  by  their 
mutual  assent  litigate  their  differences 
in  a  court  of  equity,  where  the  assent 
of  the  defendant,  if  withheld,  might 
induce  the  court  to  refrain  from  the 
exercise  of  its  jurisdiction."  In  all 
such  cases  as  that  from  which  we  have 
quoted  the  jurisdiction  concerns  the 
subject  and  not  the  person,  so  that  the 
decisions  in  those  cases  do  afRrm  that 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject,  that  is,  of 
the  particular  subject,  may  be  want- 
ing, and  yet,  if  no  objection  is  inter- 
posed, the  judgment  will  be  valid.  It 
seems  to  us  that  there  are  two  kinds 


240  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  230 

direct  attention  to  the  distinction  as  we  shall  presently  consider 
it  at  some  length.  But  whether  the  judgment  that  may  be  ren- 
dered will  be  void  or  voidable,  the  lawyer  who  does  his  duty 
will  be  careful  to  bring  his  suit  or  action  in  the  proper  court, 
for  he  will  assume  that  his  opponent  will  interpose  a  timely  and 
effective  objection  to  the  jurisdiction  where  such  an  objection  is 
tenable.  Other  considerations,  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown, 
enter  into  the  cjuestion  of  the  choice  of  the  forum,  but  the  first 
consideration  always  is  that  of  jurisdiction,  for  where  there  is  no 
jurisdiction  no  progress  can  be  made.  It  is  necessary  not  only 
to  invoke  the  aid  of  a  comj^etent  tribunal  but  to  invoke  it  in  the 
mode  prescribed  by  law,  since  the  subject  of  the  controversy 
and,  as  a  general  rule,  the  parties  interested  in  it  must  be 
brought  before  the  court,  for,  as  Bacon  says,  "The  court  has 
nothing  to  do  with  what  is  not  before  it." 

§  230.  Jurisdiction  of  courts — Definition. — It  is  difficult  to 
define  with  strict  accuracy  the  meaning  of  the  term  "jurisdic- 
tion." In  a  comprehensive  sense  it  is  true  that  where  there 
is  authority  there  is  jurisdiction,  but  to  define  jurisdiction  sim- 
ply as  authority  would  be  too  general,  inasmuch  as  it  would 
give  the  term  a  looser  and  wider  meaning  than  can  properly 
be  assigned  it,  for  authority  is  not  always  jurisdiction  in  the 
strict  sense.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  "jurisdiction  means  to 
pronounce  the  law,"  but  this  definition  is  inadequate,  and, 
indeed,  inaccurate.  The  power  to  decide  is  jurisdiction.^  If 
the  power  to  decide  exists  there  is  jurisdiction,  for  the  existence 
of  jurisdiction  does  not  at  all  depend  upon  the  correctness  of 
the  decision,  for  the  power  to  decide  implies  the  power  to  de- 
cide wrong  as  well  as  right. ^     A  decision,  no  matter  how  erro- 

of  jurisdiction  of  the  subject,  namely,  '  Tucker  v.  Sellers,  130  Ind.  514,  519. 
jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject  and  '  Hunt  v.  Hunt,  72  N.  Y.  217 ;  Cole- 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject  of  the  par-  man  v.  Floyd,  131  Ind.  330,  334;  Snel- 
ticular  suit  or  action.  Thus  there  may  son  v.  State,  16  Ind.  29 ;  Chicago,  etc., 
be  jurisdiction  generally  to  try  actions  Co.  v.  Sutton,  130  Ind.  405,  413;  Jack- 
involving  the  title  to  land,  but  that  son  «.  Smith,  120  Ind.  520,  522;  Yates 
jurisdiction  may  be  confined  to  lands  v.  Lancing,  5  Johns.  282.  See  Voor- 
lying  in  the  county  where  the  court  is  hees  v.  Jackson,  10  Peters,  449;  El- 
held,  liott  V.   Peirsol,    1    Pet.   328;    Ely   v. 


§  2oO  JURISDICTION.  241 

neous,  is  not  evidence  of  the  absence  of  jurisdiction.  Whether 
a  coniphiint  does  or  does  not  state  a  cause  of  action,'  is,  so  far 
as  concerns  the  question  of  jurisdiction,  of  no  importance; 
for,  if  the  coniphiint  states  a  case  belonging  to  a  general 
class  over  which  the  authority  of  the  court  extends,  there  is 
jurisdiction,  and  the  court  has  power  to  decide  whether  the 
pleading  is  good  or  bad.  Power,  in  the  sense  in  which  we 
liere  employ  the  word,  means  rightful  autliority,  for  where 
there  is  a  naked,  autocratic  assertion  of  authority,  or  a  clear 
usurpation  of  authority  there  is,  in  a  just  sense,  no  power. 
Two  elements  must  exist,  namely,  authority  and  right.  But 
this  does  not  imply  that  the  authority  shall  be  rightfully  exer- 
cised, for  if  power,  as  here  defined,  exists,  there  is  jurisdiction 
although  the  power  may  be  wrongfully  exercised.  For  the  rea- 
sons we  have  given  we  can  not  accept  as  correct  the  definition 
that,  "jurisdiction  is  a  power  constitutionally  conferred  upon 
a  court,  single  judge  or  magistrate,  to  take  cognizance  of  and 
decide  cases  according  to  law,  and  to  carry  their  sentence  into 
execution."^  This  definition  would  be  more  nearly  accurate 
if  it  simply  declared  that  jurisdiction  is  the  power  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  a  case  or  controversy.  It  has  been  often  said  that 
jurisdiction  is  the  power  to  hear  and  determine  a  case,  and  this 
is  the  generally  accepted  definition. "^    The  presence  of  authority 

Board,  112  Ind.  361,  368;  Million  v.  Abbott  (U.S.  C.)  94.     See,  generally, 

Board,  89  Ind.  5 ;  Young  v.  Sellers,  Wright  v.  Ware,  50  Ala.  549 ;   Good- 

106  Ind.  101.  man  r.  Winter,  64  Ala.  410;  Shroyer 

»Tramble  v.  Williams,  18  Neb.  144;  r.  Richmond,  16  Ohio  St.  455;  Nood- 

Taylor  I'.  Coots,  32  Neb.  30,  S.  C.  29  riff  v.  Stewart,  63  Ala.  206;  Lamar  r. 

Am.  St.  R.  426;  Hunt  v.  Hunt,  72  N.  Gunter,  39  Ala.  324. 
Y.  217;  Groenvelt  v.   Burwell,   1  Ld.        ^  United  States  t\  Arredondo,  6  Pet. 

Raym.  454,  467.  691;  Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts, 

*Vance  on  Jurisdiction,  2.  The  ju-  12  Peters,  657;  Grignon  r.  Astor,  2 
risdiction  of  a  court  does  not,  in  any  How.  (U.  S.)  318;  In  re  Bogart2  Saw- 
instance,  depend  upon  the  merits  of  yer,  396;  Smith  v.  Adams,  130  U.  S. 
tlie  controversy,  nor  upon  the  court's  167 ;  Riggs  v.  Johnson  County,  6  Wall, 
decision  one  way  or  the  other,  but  it  166,  187;  Holmes  i\  Oregon,  etc.,  Co., 
depends  upon  tlie  right  to  hear  and  de-  7  Saw.  380.  See,  generally.  Heckman 
termine.  Le  Roy  t'.  Clayton,  2  Saw-  r.  O'Neal,  10  Cal.  292;  Central,  etc., 
yer,  493;  Kendall  r.  United  States,  12  Co.  v.  Placer,  43  Cal.  3().5;  Browns- 
Peters,   524;    Pullan  v.  Kiusinger,  2  ville  y.  Basse,  43  Texas,  440;  Hopkins 

16 


242  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  230 

to  proceed  in  the  particular  case  or  controversy  is  necessarily 
jurisdiction,^  since  such  authority  can  not  be  present  unless 
the  power  to  take  cognizance  of  the  case  resides  in  the  tribunal 
which  assumes  control  over  it.  Any  movement  in  a  case  where 
the  authority  to  proceed  is  present,  is  the  assumption  and  ex- 
ercise of  jurisdiction,  the  proceedings  are  coram  judice,  and, 
although  they  may  be  erroneous,  they  are  not  void.^  But, 
while  it  is  true  in  a  general  sense,  that  the  power  to  decide  or 
determine  is  jurisdiction,  it  is  not  safe  to  accept  this  general 
legal  truth  without  some  qualification.  If  a  man  should  be 
sued  in  assumpsit  there  would,  obviously,  be  no  power  to  de- 
cide that  he  be  imprisoned,  for  such  a  decision  would  clearly 
be  void.  The  reason  for  this  conclusion  is  that  although  the 
general  power  to  hear  and  determine  may  exist,  there  is  no 
rightful  authority  to  adjudge  imprisonment  since  the  power  of 
the  court  in  the  general  class  of  cases  extends  only  to  the  ren- 
dition of  a  money  judgment.  Where  the  power  of  the  court 
over  a  general  class  of  cases  is  measured  and  defined  by  settled 
rules  of  law,  it  is  only  within  the  limits  of  that  power  that  the 
court  can  hear  and  determine.  The  phrase  ''the  power  to  hear 
;ind  determine,"  does  not  mean,  when  rightly  interpreted,  the 
authority  to  adjudge  what  settled  law  declares  can  not  be  de- 
cided in  any  one  of  the  general  class  of  cases  of  which  the  case 
before  the  court  is  a  member.  Where  the  general  authority 
ends  jurisdiction  ceases,  but  as  long  as  the  general  authority 
exists,  jurisdiction  continues.  If,  therefore,  the  court  having 
authority  over  a  general  class  of  cases  should  err  in  its  judg- 

V.  Commonwealth,  3  Met.  (Mass.) 460;  '  Turner  v.  Conkey,  132  Ind.  248,  S. 

Sheldon  v.  Newton,  3  Ohio  St.  494;  C.  17  LaAvyers'  R.  Anno.  509,  31  N.  E. 

Curry  v.  Miller,  42  Ind.  320 ;  Quarl  v.  R.  777. 

Abbett,  102  Ind.  233;  Ex  parte  Ben-  *  Dequindre  U.Williams,  31  Ind.  444; 
nett,  44  Cal.  84;  Lampson  v.  Piatt,  1  Board  v.  Markle,  46  Ind.  96,  110,  cit- 
Towa,  5o6 ;  Perry  v.  Morse,  57  Vt.  509 ;  ing,  among  other  cases.  Cooper  v.  Sun- 
Vaughn  u.  Congdon,  56  Vt.  Ill;  Ho-  derland,  3  Iowa,  114;  Little  v.  Sin- 
bart  V.  Hobart,  45  Iowa,  501 ;  Shum-  nett,  7  Iowa,  324;  Sheldon  v.  Wright, 
way  V.  Stillman,  6  Wend.  447;  Bissell  1  Seld.  (N.  Y.  App.)  497;  Jackson  v. 
V.  Briggs,  9  Mass.  462;  Ferguson  v.  Robinson,  4  Wend.  436;  Jackson  v. 
Mahon,  11  Adolp.  &  Ell.  179,  182;  Crawfords,  12  Wend.  533. 
Kinning  v.  Buchanan,  8  C.  B.  271. 


§  231  JURISDICTION.  243 

ment  in  a  particular  case,  the  judgment  is  not  void,  for  juris- 
diction is  not  lost.  Where,  however,  the  judgment  is  entirely 
beyond  and  outside  of  the  kind  or  species  of  judgments  proper 
in  the  general  class  of  cases,  there  is  no  force  in  it,  but  if  at 
all  within  the  class  of  judgments  that  may  be  rendered  in  the 
general  class  of  cases,  it  is  effective  as  against  all  collateral  as- 
saults.^ If,  in  other  words,  it  appears  from  the  record  that  the 
judgment  rendered  is  one  which  can  not  possibly  be  properly 
pronounced  in  any  member  of  the  general  class  to  which  the 
particular  case  belongs  it  may  be  logically  affirmed  that  the 
judgment  is  one  beyond  the  court's  jurisdiction,  but  if  there 
must  be  resort  to  extrinsic  evidence  to  make  this  appear,  or  if 
the  judgment  is  one  that  might  be  rendered  in  any  one  of  the 
cases  belonging  to  the  general  class  over  which  the  court  has 
authority,  it  can  not  be  held  that  the  judgment  is  void  because 
of  the  absence  of  jurisdiction,  no  matter  how  much  of  error  the 
record  may  contain.^ 

§  231.  Elements  of  Jurisdiction. — The  right  to  hear  and  de- 
termine judicial  controversies,  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown, 
resides  solely  in  judicial  tribunals,  so  that  an  element  of  juris- 
diction is  the  existence  of  a  tribunal,  possessing  in  some  meas- 
ure, at  least,  part  of  the  governmental  power  distributed  by 

'  See,  Post,  §  268 ;  Ex  parte  Gordan,  often  loosely  employed  in  legislative 

92  Cal.  478,  S.  C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  154;  enactments,   and   to   give   it  a  strict 

People  f.  Liscomb,  60  N.  Y.  559;  Ex  meaning  would  in  many  cases  unset- 

parte  Page,  49  Mo.  291 ;  "Windsor  v.  Mc-  tie  titles  and  work  injustice.     See,  as 

Veigh,  93  U.  S.  274;    Cornett  v.  Will-  touching  the  general  subject,  Mann  v. 

iams,  20  Wall.  226;  Ex  parte  Lange,  Martin,  14  Bush,  763,  767;  Thornton 

11  Wall.    163;    Ex  parte  Y&rhrongh,  i-.  McGrath,  1  Duvall  (Ky.),  349,  351 ; 

120  V.  S.  651 ;  Rosenbaum  v.  Bauer,  7  Hoffman  v.  Harrington,  28  Mich.  90; 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  633 ;  In  re  Pierce,  44  Wis.  Boyles  v.  Boyles,  37  Iowa,  592 ;  Good 

411;  In  re  Bond,  9  So.  Car.  80,  S.  C.  v.   Norley,   28   Iowa,   188;    Forbes  v. 

30  Am.  R.  20 ;  Spoors  v.  Coen,  44  Ohio  Ilalsey,  26  N.Y.  53,  65 ;  Terwilliger  v. 

St.  497,  S.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  132.  Brown,  44  N.  Y.  237;  Banta  v.  Rey- 

'The  word  "jurisdiction,"  as  is  true  nolds,  3  B.  ^lon.  80;  Terrill  r.  Auch- 

of  almost  all  other  words,  when  used  auer,  14  Ohio  St.  80;  Beach  ii.  Atkin- 

in   a  statute   may  have  its   meaning  son,  87  Ga.  28S,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  591; 

fixed  or  controlled  by  the  words  with  Suydam  v.  Palmer,  63  Ga.  546. 
which  it  is  associated.     The  word  is 


244  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  231 

the  constitution  to  the  judiciary.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the 
tribunal  should  be  one  de  jure,^  but  there  must  be  at  least  a 
de  facto  tribunal.  Where  no  tribunal  can  by  any  legal  possi- 
bility have  an  existence  there  can  be  no  jurisdiction.  The  tri- 
bunal must  be  one  having  authority  over  the  general  class  of 
cases  to  which  the  particular  case  belongs.  We  may  take  a  suit 
to  foreclose  a  mortgage  prosecuted  in  a  court  having  only  ju- 
risdiction in  criminal  cases,  as  an  illustration  of  the  doctrine 
that  where  there  is  no  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class  the  pro- 
ceedings are  coram  non  judice,  for  it  is  obvious  that  as  to  suits 
to  foreclose  a  mortgage  a  court  of  exclusive  criminal  jurisdic- 
tion is  as  no  court.  Authority  over  the  general  subject,  that 
is,  of  the  general  class  of  cases,  constitutes  unimpeachable  ju- 
risdiction so  far  as  the  subject-matter  is  concerned,  and  if  au- 
thority over  a  particular  case  is  rightfully  acquired  there  can 
be  no  successful  attack  in  any  form  upon  the  jurisdiction,  no 
matter  whether  objections  are  or  are  not  interposed.  Where 
there  is  authority  over  a  general  class  of  cases  but  none  over  a 
particular  member  of  the  class,  then,  a  timely  objection  may 
be  fatal  to  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  the  particular  instance. 
Thus,  if  the  circuit  court  or  district  court  has  general  jurisdic- 
tion of  all  actions  to  recover  possession  of  lands,  but  that  juris- 
diction is  confined  to  land  situate  in  the  county  wherein  the 
court  sits,  we  believe  that  if  the  parties  appear  and  make  no 
objection  a  judgment  would  not  be  void,  although  the  land  in- 
volved in  the  particular  case  may  be  situated  in  a  county  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  the  court  is  held.^  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  authority  over  the  person  is  essential  to  the  existence 
of  plenary  jurisdiction,  but  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  juris- 
diction to  render  decrees  or  judgment  affecting  property  may 
exist,  although,  in  the  strict  sense,  there  is  no  complete  juris- 
diction of  the  person.  It  will  lead  to  error  to  give  too  wide  a 
meaning  to  the  statement  so  often  made  by  text-writers  and 
judges  that  two  indispensable  elements  of  jurisdiction  are  au- 
thority over  the  subject-matter  and  over  the  person.^     One  of 

'  Ante,  §  164,  note  4.  '  In  the  case  of  Hope  v.  Blair,  105 

'  Post,  §  240  and  authorities  cited  in    Mo.  85,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  366,  the  court 

note.  said:     "The  subject-matter  of  a  suit, 


§231 


JURISDICTION. 


245 


the  elements  of  jurisdiction  is  said  to  be  "that  the  matter  is 
within  the  issues."^  We  can  not  assent  to  tlie  broad  doctrine 
that  where  a  matter  is  not  within  the  issues  there  is  no  jurisdic- 
tion. It  seems  to  us  that  the  courts  which  unqualifiedly  declare 
that  the  question  of  jurisdiction  depends  upon  whether  a  matter 
is  or  is  not  within  the  issues,  are  in  error,  and  we  trust  we  may 
be  pardoned  for  saying  that  the  error  is  due,  in  the  main,  to  the 
fact  that  they  confuse  the  doctrine  of  res  judicatas  with  that  of 
collateral  attack  and  lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  void 
and  voidable  proceedings.  Whether  a  matter  is  or  is  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  must,  in  most  cases,  depend  up(jn 
whether  it  is  or  is  not  germane  to  a  particular  case  belonging  to  a 
class  over  which  the  authority  of  the  tribunal  extends.^  Neces- 
sarily in  proceeding  with  a  case,  or,  in  hearing  and  determining 


when  reference  is  made  to  questions 
of  jurisdiction,  is  defined  to  mean  'the 
nature  of  the  cause  of  action  and  tlie 
relief  sought.'  "  Cooper  v.  Reynolds, 
10  Wall.  308.  This  we  believe  to  be 
entirely  correct,  but  when  it  is  added, 
as  is  done  in  the  case  from  which  we 
have  quoted,  that,  "A  court  may  be 
said  to  hav^e  jurisdiction  of  the  subject- 
matter  of  a  suit  when  it  has  a  right  to 
determine  the  controversy  or  question 
in  issue  between  the  parties  or  grant 
the  relief  prayed,"  we  think,  we  say 
with  deference,  that  the  rule  is  not 
correctly  stated.  Whether  there  is 
authority  to  grant  the  relief  prayed  or 
not,  does  not  necessarily  affect  the 
tiuestion  of  jurisdiction,  nor  is  the 
question  affected  by  the  consideration 
of  what  is  or  is  not  within  the  issues. 
In  the  case  from  which  the  above  ex- 
tract is  taken  were  cited  the  following 
cases:  Adams  v.  Cowles,  Ho  Mo.  501, 
S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  74 ;  Brown  r. Woody, 
64  Mo.  547  Higgins  v.  Peltzer,  49  Mo. 
152. 

*  The  statement  which  follows,  taken 
from  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  Mun- 
day  V.  Vail,  84  N.  J.  L.  41S,  is  subject 
to  the  criticism  that  it  makes  it  an  el- 


ement of  jurisdiction  that  the  matter 
be  within  the  issues.  "Jurisdiction," 
said  the  court,  "may  be  defined  to  be 
the  right  to  adjudicate  concerning  the 
subject-matter  in  a  given  case.  To 
constitute  this  there  are  three  essen- 
tials :  The  court  must  have  cognizance 
of  the  class  of  cases  to  which  the  one 
adjudged  belongs ;  2,  the  proper  par- 
ties must  be  present ;  and,  3,  the  point 
decided  must  be,  in  substance  and  ef- 
fect, within  the  issues."  See,  also, 
Jones  V.  Davenport,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  77, 
S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  570. 

»  Lewis  V.  3Iorrow,  89  Mo.  174,  S.  C. 
1  S.  W.  R.  93 ;  Fletcher  v.  Holmes,  25 
Ind.  458 ;  Allie  v.  Schmitz,  17  Wis.  169; 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Mineral  Point,  etc.,  Co., 
24  Wis.  93;  Tolman  v.  Jones,  114  111. 
147;  Real  Estate,  etc.,  Inst.  r.  Collo- 
nious,  63  Mo.  290;  O'Reilly  r.  Nich- 
olson, 45  Mo.  160;  IMcCrillisr.  Harri- 
son County,  63  Iowa,  592,  S.  C.  19  N. 
AV.  R.  679;  Davenport,  etc.,  Ass'n  r. 
Schmidt,  15  Iowa,  213.  See,  general- 
ly, Chase  r.  Christianson,  41  Cal.253; 
Buice  r.  Lowman,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Ga. 
769;  Ketchum  r.  White,  72  Iowa,  193, 
S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  627;  Chaffee  r. 
Hooper,  54  Vt.  513;  Kendall  v.  Math- 


246  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  231 

it,  the  court  must  decide  what  is  or  is  not  within  the  issues,  so 
that  while  there  may  be  error  there  can  not  be  an  entire  absence 
of  power.  If  any  principle  in  the  branch  of  the  law  we  are  dis- 
cussing can  be  regarded  as  too  firmly  settled  to  be  shaken,  it  is, 
that  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  can  not  be  conferred  by  consent, 
and,  certainly,  consent  that  the  court  may  decide  a  matter  not 
within  the  issues  would  preclude  the  party  from  assailing  the 
decision  on  appeal,  and,  surely,  if  it  be  unassailable  on  appeal 
it  can  not  be  void.  Issues  are  framed  by  the  parties  while  ju- 
risdiction is  conferred  by  law,  and  it  seems  to  us  that  consent, 
tacit  or  express,  may  give  authority  to  decide  any  question 
arising  in  a  case  belonging  to  a  class  over  which  the  law  has 
given  the  tribunal  authority.  If  a  defendant  in  an  action 
should  consent  that  judgment  should  go  upon  two  promissory 
notes  where  one  only  was  declared  on,  the  judgment  would  not 
be  erroneous,  much  less  void,  yet,  if  jurisdiction  depends  upon 
whether  a  matter  is  within  the  issues,  consent,  in  such  a  case 
as  that  supposed,  would  go  for  nothing.  It  is  a  familiar  rule 
that  a  ministerial  officer  is  protected  by  process  issued  upon  a 
judgment  within  the  general  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  but  if  it 
be  true  that  jurisdiction  depends  upon  whether  a  matter  adju- 
dicated is  or  is  not  within  the  issues,  this  rule  is  practically 
without  force.  We  can  not  believe  that  a  ministerial  officer  is 
bound,  at  his  peril,  to  ascertain  and  determine  whether  a  mat- 
ter is  within  the  issues,  and,  yet,  this  he  must  do  if  it  be  true 
that  jurisdiction  depends  upon  whether  a  judgment  or  decree 
is  within  the  issues  joined  by  the  parties.  We  are  fully  per- 
suaded, notwithstanding  the  strong  array  of  authority,  that 
"the  state  of  being  within  the  issues"  is  not  always  an  element 
of  jurisdiction. 

er,  48  Tex.  585;    Smith  v.   Keen,  26  we  venture  to  say  that  the  course  of 

Me.  411.     But,  see,  co/ifra,  Blachlock  reasoning  pursued  and  the  authorities 

t".  Stewart,  2  Bay  (So. Car.),  363;  Spoors  cited  in  the  case  last  named  show  that 

V.  Coen,  44  Ohio  St.  497,  S.  C.  9  N.  the  high  tribunal  that  decided  the  case 

E.  R.  132 ;  Silsbe  v.  Lucas,  36  111.  462 ;  acted  upon  a  mistaken  theory,  for  it  is 

Strobe  ■».  Downer,  13  Wis.  11;  Water-  clear  that  the  court  treated  the  case 

man  v.  Laurence,  19  Cal.  210,  217 ;  City  as  one  governed  by  the  doctrine  of  res 

of  Peru  V.  Bearss,  55  Ind.  576;  Key-  adjudicates,  whereas  the  central  ques- 

nolds  V.  Stockton,  140  U.  S.  254.     At  tion  was  whether  the  decree  in  contrc 

the  risk  of  being  thought  presumptuous  versy  was  absolutely  void. 


§  232  JURISDICTION.  247 

§  232.    Source  of  Jurisdiction  over  legal  controversies. — 

Traced  back  to  its  ultimate  source  the  power  to  liear  and  de- 
termine controversies  concerning  the  rights  of  persons  or 
things  will  be  found  to  come  from  the  people.  The  people,  by 
virtue  of  their  sovereign  right,  create  departments  of  govern- 
ment and  distribute  the  various  elements  of  governmental  sov- 
ereignty. This  they  do  directly  by  the  constitution  framed  by 
them,  or  by  delegating,  either  expressly  or  impliedly,  the 
power  to  the  legislature.^  .  The  general  theory  is  that  the  legis- 
lature possesses  the  law-making  power  except  as  limited  by  the 
constitution,  but  this  theory  can  not  be  so  extended  as  to  make 
the  legislative  authority  unbounded,  since  that  w^ould  imply 
power  to  subvert  the  fundamental  principle  of  distributive  pow- 
ers by  a  unification  of  the  governmental  departments.  In  a 
broad  sense  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  is  derived  from  the  law 
of  the  land.^  Courts  can  not  be  created  by  parties,  nor  can  par- 
ties by  agreement  invest  tribunals  with  jurisdiction  over  mat- 
ters which  require  judicial  investigation  and  determination. 
But  the  law  of  the  land  is  not  found  exclusively  in  written 
constitutions  or  statutes,  for  there  is  an  immense  body  of  law 
that,  in  a  legal  sense,  remains  unwritten.  To  this  unwritten 
law  it  is  often  necessary  to  appeal  in  order  to  fully  ascertain 
and  accurately  mark  the  jurisdiction  of  our  courts.  The  un- 
written law  yields,  of  course,  to  the  written  law  embodied  in 
constitutions  and  statutes,  but  constitutions  and  statutes  have 
not  entirely  displaced  it;  on  the  contrary,  the  unwritten  law 
of  the  land  is  not  shorn  of  much  of  its  vigor  or  power.  It 
is,  therefore,  true  that  the  jurisdiction  of  courts,  employing  the 
term  jurisdiction  in  a  broad  and  comprehensive  sense,  is  de- 
rived in  part  from  the  unwritten  law.  Somewhere  in  the  law 
must  be  found  a  rule  or  provision  conferring  jurisdiction  of 
the  general  subject  or  no  such  jurisdiction  can  exist.  There  is 
diversity  of  opinion  upon  the  question  as  to  what  constitutes 

'  ^n^e,  §§  144,  145,  147.  N.  Car.  36i);    Perkins  v.  Corbin,  45 

*IMissouri,    etc.,    Co.    v.    National  Ala.    103;    Withers   r.    Patterson,  27 

Bank,  74  III.  217;  Martin  v.  Hunter's  Texas,  491;    Belcher  v.  Chambers,  53 

Lessee,    1   Wheat.   304;     Houston   v.  Cal.  635. 

Moore,  5  Wheat.  1 ;  State  v.  Smith,  65 


248 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  233 


the  general  subject,  but  none  upon  the  proposition  that  con- 
sent can  not  confer  such  jurisdiction.^  If  a  suit  or  action  is 
commenced  in  a  tribunal  where  there  is  an  absolute  want  of 
jurisdiction,  subsequent  legislation,  will  not,  it  has  been  held, 
give  validity  to  the  proceedings.^  The  better  rule  is  that  a 
party  can  not  do  by  indirection  what  he  may  not  do  directly, 
so  that  when  the  amount  in  controversy  is  the  test  of  jurisdic- 
tion, a  party  can  not  create  jurisdiction  by  giving  a  fictitious 
credit.^  This  general  principle  is-  illustrated  in  the  cases 
which  declare  that  over  feigned  or  fictitious  cases  there  is  no 
jurisdiction,*  but  we  suppose  that  where  the  record  does  not, 
on  its  face,  reveal  the  true  character  of  the  case,  a  collateral 
attack  would  not  be  successful,  inasmuch  as  the  rule  is  that 
extrinsic  evidence  can  not  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  a  judgment  to  be  void. 

§  233.   Exercise  of  jurisdiction — Instrumentalities. — Where 
there  is  power  any  movement  in  a  cause  is  the  exercise  of  ju- 


'  Weeden  v.  Richmond,  9  R.  I.  128, 
S.  C.  98  Am.  Dec.  373;  Muldrow  v. 
Norris,  2  Cal.  74,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec. 
313;  Hawkins  v.  Hughes,  87  N.  Car. 
115 ;  Michaels?).  Hine,  3  Green  (Iowa), 
470 ;  Andrews u.Wheaton,23Conn.ll2 ; 
Central  Bank  v.  Gibson,  11  Ga.  453; 
Damp  V.  Dane,  29  Wis.  419;  State  v. 
Judge,  21  La.  Ann.  258;  Cottrell  v. 
Den,  15  N.  J.  L.  345;  Abat  v.  Songy, 
7  Mart.  (La.)  274 ;  Bent  v.  Graves,  3 
McCord,  280 ;  Green  v.  Collins,  6  Ire- 
dell, 139 ;  State  v.  Bonney,  34  Me.  223 ; 
.Stater-.  Tolleston,  53  Fed.  R.  18 ;  Crane 
V.  Farmer,  14  Colo.  294,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R. 
455 ;  Planters'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  47 
Miss.  200;  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1 
Cranch,  137;  Board  v.  Newman,  35 
Ind.  10;  Smiths.  Myers,  109  Ind.  1; 
Trotter  v.  Neal,  50  Ark.  340,  S.  C.  7 
S.  W.  R.  384;  State  v.  Richmond,  6 
Fost.  (N.  H.)232;  Baker w.  Chisholm, 
3  Texas,  157;  Chapman  v.  Morgan,  2 
Greene  (Iowa),  374;  Tilus  v.  Rclyea, 


8  Abb.  Pr.  R.  177;  Burns  v.  Nash,  32 
111.  App.  552 ;  l7i  re  Radde,  9  N. Y.  Supp. 
812,  2  Connoly,  293;  Fields  r^.Walker, 
23  Ala.  155;  McCall  v.  Peachy,  1  Call. 
(Va.)  55 ;  Dicks  v.  Hatch,  10  Iowa,  380 ; 
Dodson  V.  Scroggs,47  Mo. 285 ;  Georgia, 
etc.,  Assn.  v.  McGowan,  59  Ga.  811. 

*  Morn  V.  Kuzac,  21  La.  Ann.  754. 

3  Bent  V.  Graves,  3  McCord,  280,  S. 
C.  15  Am.  Dec.  632;  Simpson  v.  Mc- 
Million,  1  Nott.  &  McC.192 ;  St.  Amand 
V.  Gerry,  2  Nott.  &  McC.  486;  Horton 
V.  Sawyer,  59  Ind.  587 ;  Gage  v.  Clark, 
22  Ind.  163;  Thompson  v.  Kerr,  17 
Ind.  288 ;  James  v.  Stokes,  77  Va.  225, 
227. 

*  Cleveland  v.  Chamberlain,  1  Black 
(U.  S.),  419;  Brewington  v.  Lowe,  1 
Ind.  21 ;  Hotchkiss  v.  Jones,  4  Ind. 
260;  Smith  v.  Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  29 
Ind.  546;  Lord  v.  Veazie,  8  How.  (IT. 
S.)  250,254;  Plainfield  u.  Plainfield, 
67  Wis.  525 


§  233  JURISDKTION.  249 

risdiction  whether  there  is  or  is  not  an  explicit  assertion  that 
jurisdiction  exists.  There  is  always  and  of  necessity  authority 
to  decide  upon  the  question  of  jurisdiction,  for  a  decision  that 
jurisdiction  does  not  exist  is  made  where  the  court  refuses  to 
entertain  authority  over  the  case,  so  that  in  every  instance 
there  is  some  exercise  of  authority,  whether  jurisdiction  be  as- 
sumed or  declined.^  When  a  cause  in  which  there  is  authority 
to  proceed  is  presented  to  a  tribunal  it  must  evidence  its  de- 
cision upon  its  own  jurisdiction  by  an  order  of  dismissal  or 
some  other  appropriate  order.  Jurisdiction  is  exercised  in 
every  instance  where  a  decision  is  made,  no  matter  what  may 
be  the  character  of  the  decision.  If  a  party  who  invokes 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  believes  that  a  decision  refusing 
to  entertain  jurisdiction  is  erroneous  he  certainly  has  a  right 
of  appeal,  provided,  of  course,  the  decision  is  given  in  a  class 
of  cases  that  are  appealable.  There  is,  therefore,  some  exer- 
cise of  jurisdiction  in  every  case  presented  for  the  consideration 
of  a  judicial  tribunal,  and  the  cases  which  hold  that  where 
there  is  no  jurisdiction  there  can  not  be  an  order  of  dismissal 
are  wrong  and  those  which  hold  that  there  may  be  such  an  or- 
der are  right. ^  An  appellate  tribunal  necessarily  exercises  its 
powers  in  many  respects  in  a  different  mode  from  that  pursued 
by  a  court  of  original  jurisdiction,  but  it  is  here  necessary  to  note 
only  one  particular  wherein  the  mode  differs.  Where  a  trial 
court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  proceed  it  can  do  no  more  than 
direct  a  dismissal,  but  where  the  trial  court  assumes  juris- 
diction where  it  has  none  and  enters  a  decree  or  judgment, 
and  the  case  is  appealed,  the  appellate  tribunal  may  prop- 
erly order  a  dismissal,  for  if  it  simply  declined  to  entertain 
jurisdiction  parties  would  be  embarrassed  by  the  judgment 
rendered  in  the  nisi  prius  court. -^     In  the  case  referred  to  in 

'  King  tK  Poole,  36  Barb.  242.  ])ut  a  different  rule  necessarily  pre- 

» Robertson  v.  State,  109  Ind.  79.  vails  in  an   appellate  court  in  cases 

'  United  States  d.  Huckabee,16  Wall,  wbere  the  subordinate  court  was  with- 

414,  435.     The  court  in  the  course  of  out  jurisdiction  and  has  given  judg- 

the  opinion  said:     "Usually  where  a  ment  or  decree  for  the  plaintiff  or  im- 

court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  a  case,  the  properly  decreed  affirmative  relief  to 

correct  practice  is  to  dismiss  the  suit,  a  claimant.     In  such  a  case  the  judg- 


250  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  233 

the   note,   the  doctrine  is,  we  venture  to  say  with  deference 
to    the    great    court  by    which   the   decision    was    given,   too 
strongly  stated,  for,  if  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court  was  ren- 
dered without  jurisdiction,  it  would  do  no  more  than  annoy  or 
embarrass  the  parties,  since  it  would  be,  if  coram  non  judice,  a 
mere  nullity.     Jurisdiction  of  a  general  class  of  cases  may  ex- 
ist and  yet  a  judgment  be  void.     This  is  true  where  there  is 
nothing  to  call  the  jurisdiction  into  exercise,  for  we  suppose  that 
where  there  is  nothing  at  all  to  invoke  jurisdiction  there  can 
be  no  exercise  of  it  and  hence  no  valid  decision.^     If,  for  ex- 
ample, an  action  can  only   be  commenced   by  a  complaint  or 
declaration   and   there   is  absolutely  nothing  assuming  to  be 
such  a  pleading,  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  exercise  of  ju- 
risdiction and  if  no  foundation  no  right  to  exercise  authority. 
But  we  are  far  from  asserting  that  there  must  be  a  sufficient 
complaint  or  declaration,  for,  no  matter  how  full  of  defects  the 
pleading  may  be,  yet  jurisdiction  may,  as  we  have  elsewhere 
shown, 2  be  assumed  and  exercised.     In  order  to  give  full  val- 
idity to  judicial  proceedings   and  impress   upon  them   strict 
regularity,  jurisdiction  must  be    exercised  in  the  mode  pre- 
scribed by  law,  but  the  failure  to  so  exercise  it  when  it  has 
once  attached  does  not  make  the  proceedings  coram  non  judice. 
Such  a  failure  may  constitute  error  available  on  appeal  but 
it  does  not  affect  the  question  of  the  existence  of  jurisdiction 
nor  the  question  of  the  mode  of  its  exercise  in  such  a  sense  as 
to  make  the  proceedings  void.     As  all  judicial  power  resides 
in  courts  it  follows  that  such  power  must  be  exercised  by  ju- 
dicial tribunals.     Judges   or  judicial   officers  are   the  instru- 
ment or  decree  in  the  court  below    be  such  cases.     We  do  not  refer  to 
must  be  reversed,  else  the  party  which    such  cases  so  much  for  the  purpose  of 
prevailed  there  would  have  the  benefit    culling  attention  to  their  existence  as 
of  such   judgment  or  decree,  though     for    the     purpose    of    enforcing    the 
rendered  by  a  court  which  had  no  au-     proposition  that  it  is  not  always  true 
thority   to   hear    and  determine  the    that  where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the 
matter  in  controversy."  general  subject  and  process  served  the 

'  It  is  true  that  such  cases  are  very     proceedings  can  not  be  void, 
rare,  and  that  in  actual  practice  they        ^  Ante,  §  230. 
are  seldom  encountered,  but  t  here  may 


§  233  JURISDICTION.  251 

mentalities  for  the  exercise  of  judicial  power.  If  the  record 
shows  that  the  person  who  assumes  to  be  a  judge  can  by  no 
legal  possibility  be  such  there  is  no  court  and  consequently  no 
jurisdiction  nor  valid  exercise  of  jurisdiction.  So,  if  it  ap- 
pears that  a  ministerial  or  executive  officer  has  arrogated  to 
himself  powers  or  functions  of  a  judge  and  has  assumed  to  de- 
cide controversies  requiring  judicial  investigation  and  deter- 
mination the  attempt  to  exercise  jurisdiction  is  abortive  and  all 
proceedings  are  void.  Such  an  usurper  can  not  rightfully  take 
a  single  step  for  his  proceedings  are  destitute  of  the  faintest 
tint  of  right.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  courts  have  no  ju- 
risdiction over  the  constitutional  acts  of  the  executive  or  legis- 
lative departments.  This  statement  is  misleading.  We  be- 
lieve the  better  doctrine  to  be  that  a  court  can  not  control  i 
separate  department  of  government  as,  for  instance,  the  execu- 
tive,^ but  we  do  not  believe  that  there  is  an  utter  absence  of 
jurisdiction.  In  such  cases  there  is  a  general  jurisdiction  and 
if  a  judgment  is  given  in  the  exercise  of  that  jurisdiction  it 
may  be  erroneous  but  it  is  not  void.  If  not  void  there  is  ju- 
risdiction, for  to  assert  that  a  judgment  is  not  void  is  to  affirm 
that  jurisdiction  exists.  If  the  jurisdiction  exists  but  is  wrong- 
fully exercised  there  may  be  error  in  the  proceedings  render- 
ing the  judgment  voidable,  but  there  is  not  such  an  absence  of 
authority  as  authorizes  the  judgment  to  be  treated  as  an  abso- 
lute nullity.  There  is,  it  is  evident,  a  difference  between  the 
exercise  of  jurisdiction  and  the  existence  of  jurisdiction.    In  the 

>  Bates  V.  Taylor,  87  Tenn.  319,  S.  C.  S.)  284 ;  March  v.  State,  44  Texas,  64 ; 

28  Am.   L.   Reg.  341;    Sutherland  v.  State  v.  Cahen,  28  La.  Ann.  645;  Cra- 

Governor,  29  Mich.  320,  S.  C.  18  Am.  gin  v.  Powell,  128  U.  S.  691;   Steel  v. 

R.  89;  Hovey  v.  State,  127  Ind.  588;  Smelting  Co.,  106  U.  S.  447;    United 

Hawkins  r.    Governor,    1    Ark.   570;  States  v.  Throckmorton,  98  U.  S.  61 ; 

State  V.   Governor,  25   N.  J.  L.  331 ;  Gazzam  v.  Phillips,  20  How.  (U.  S.) 

People  r.  Bissell,  19  111.  229;    Maman  372;  Niswanger  v.  Saunders,  1  AVall. 

V.  Smith,  8  R.  I.  192;    Rice  v.  Austin,  424;  Belcher  v.  Linn,  24  How.  (U.  S.) 

19  Minn.  103;    Appeal  of  Hartranft,  508;  United  States  r.  Seaman,  17  How. 

85  Pa.  St.   433.     See,  generally,   De-  (U.S.)  225;    Pacific,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Gov- 

catur  V.  Paulding,  14  Pet.  497 ;    Bras-  ernor,  23  Mo.  353 ;    Smith  v.  Myers, 

hear  v.   ]Mason,  6  How.    (U.  S.)  92;  109  Ind.  1. 
United  States  v.  Guthrie,  17  How.  (U. 


252  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  234 

one  class  of  cases  the  proceedings  may  be  void  but  ordinarily 
they  are  only  voidable,  while  in  the  other  class,  that  in  which 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  jurisdiction,  they  are  invariably 
void. 

§  234.  Classification. — Jurisdiction  as  respects  the  tribunal 
may  be  classified  as:  1.  Appellate  jurisdiction.  2.  Original 
jurisdiction.  A  further  and  minor  division  of  jurisdiction, 
considered  with  reference  to  the  tribunal  is  this:  1.  Exclu- 
sive jurisdiction.  2.  Concurrent  jurisdiction.  A  classifica- 
tion of  jurisdiction  with  reference  to  the  general  authority  of 
courts  gives  us  this  division:  1.  Jurisdiction  of  the  general 
subject.  2.  Jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject.  Another 
division  made  necessary,  or,  at  least,  proper,  by  the  difference 
between  the  two  great  systems  of  jurisprudence,  equity  and 
law  is  this:  1.  Equity  jurisdiction.  2.  Law  jurisdiction. 
As  regards  the  person  there  is  but  one  great  branch  and  that 
is:  Jurisdiction  of  the  person.  There  is  a  species  of  jurisdic- 
tion called,  jurisdiction  m  rem,  but  this  is  really  a  subdivision 
of  the  division  of  jurisdiction  of  the  subject,  or  as  it  is  often 
called  jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter.  Another  division  of 
jurisdiction  is  denominated,  territorial  jurisdiction,  and  this  is 
little  else  than  a  subdivision  of  the  division  called  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  general  subject.  A  division  with  respect  to  the 
character  of  the  authority  possessed  by  courts  is  this:  1.  Civil. 
2.  Criminal.  Other  divisions  are  given  as  ecclesiastical  and 
military,  but  these  divisions  we  simply  mention  as  it  is  not 
our  purpose  to  treat  of  them,  nor  do  we  think  it  necessary  to 
consider  the  division  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction,  since 
what  is  said  upon  other  divisions  necessarily  applies  to  that 
division  which  is  a  mere  cross-division  of  a  class  sufficiently 
well  divided.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  make  a  strictly  logical 
classification  without  departing  from  the  accepted  legal  termi- 
nology, and  greater  confusion  would  be  produced  by  such  a 
departure  than  is  warranted  even  though  a  departure  might 
insure  a  better  classification. 

§  235.    Appellate  jurisdiction. — The  authority  to  review,  re- 


§  235 


JURISDICTION, 


253 


vise,  reverse  or  adjudicate  upon  matters  passed  upon  by  a 
court  of  original  jurisdiction  constitutes  appellate  jurisdiction.^ 
Appellate  jurisdiction  exists  only  where  there  is  a  judgment 
or  decision  of  another  tribunal  to  be  reviewed,'^  and  is  essen- 
tially one  of  review.  It  is  always  implied  that  there  is  a  re- 
moval from  one  tribunal  to  another  and,  generally,  from  an 
inferior  to  a  superior  tribunal.  When  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
appellate  court  attaches  that  of  the  court  from  which  the 
appeal'^  is  taken  is  ousted,  since  one  case  can  not  be  in  two 
tribunals,   where  the  grades  are  different  at  the  same  time.* 


'  Judge  Story  says:  "The  essential 
criterion  of  appellate  jurisdiction  is 
that  it  revises  and  corrects  the  pro- 
ceedings in  a  cause  already  instituted, 
and  does  not  create  that  cause.  In 
reference  to  judicial  tribunals,  an  ap- 
pellate jurisdiction,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily implies  that  the  subject-matter 
has  already  been  instituted  in  and 
acted  upon  by  some  other  court,  whose 
judgment  or  proceedings  are  to  be  re- 
vised. This  appellate  jurisdiction  may 
be  exercised  in  a  variety  of  forms,  and, 
indeed,  in  any  form  which  the  legis- 
lature may  choose  to  prescribe,  but 
still  the  substance  must  exist  before 
the  form  can  be  applied  to  it."  2  Sto- 
ry Const.,  §  1761;  Elliott's  Appellate 
Procedure,  §§  16,  17. 

*  In  Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoup,  6  Ohio  St. 
342,  the  court  said:  "Appelhite  juris- 
diction is  the  cognizance  which  a  su- 
perior court  takes  of  a  case  removed 
to  it  by  appeal  or  writ  of  error  from 
the  decision  of  an  inferior  tribunal. 
The  power  of  the  appellate  court  nec- 
essarily incUides  the  power  not  only 
to  reverse  the  judgment,  but  also  to 
control  and  direct  the  subseiiuont  ac- 
tion of  the  subordinate  court,  .\ppel- 
late  jurisdiction,  therefore,  always  im- 
plies the  existence  of  subordinate 
courts  in  the  same  judicial  organiza- 
tion over  which  the  court  in  which  it 


is  vested  exercises  a  supervising  or 
correcting  control." 

'  We  use  the  term  appeal  in  a  gen- 
eric sense,  and  .as  meaning  the  remov- 
al of  a  case  to  a  court  of  review  or  a 
court  for  the  correction  of  errors.  A 
case  may  be  carried  from  the  court  of 
original  jurisdiction  to  the  appellate 
tribunal  by  a  writ  of  error  or  by  ap- 
peal, but,  so  far  as  concerns  the  ques- 
tion of  jurisdiction  here  under  discus- 
sion, the  mode  of  removal  is  not  im- 
portant, although  it  is  important  wliere 
the  question  is  whether  the  appeal  has 
been  properly  taken  or  the  writ  of  er- 
ror duly  sued  out  and  prosecuted.  See 
Elliott's  Appellate  Procedure,  §§  16  to 
24  inclusiv3 ;  Curtis'  Jurisdiction  of 
Courts  of  the  United  States,61 ;  Vando- 
veer  v.  Holcomb,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  547.  The 
right  of  appeal  is  statutory.  Ex  parte 
iMcCardle,  7  Wall.  506;  Kundinger  i-. 
Saginaw,  59  ^lich.  355,  S.  C.  26  N.  W. 
R.  634. 

♦  Allen  I'.  Allen,  80  Ala.  154;  Boyn- 
ton  V.  Foster,  7  Metcf .  415 ;  Bryan  v. 
Berry,  8  Cal.  130;  Baggs  v.  Smith,  53 
Cal.  88 ;  Burgess  r.O'Ponoghue,  00  Mo. 
200.  2  S.  W.  R.  803  ;  Elgin  Lumber  Co. 
r.  Langman,  23  111.  App.  250;  State  i'. 
Duffel,  41  La.  Ann.  058;  Stephens  r. 
Koonce,  106  N.  C.  222,  S.  C.  10  S.  E. 
R.  096 ;  Kimberly  v.  Arms,  40  Fed.  R. 
548;  Ensmingerr.  Powers,  108  U.  S. 


254 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  235 


The  principle  involved  in  the  cases  to  which  we  refer  in  the 
note  requires  that  cases  should  not  be  appealed  piecemeal  but 
should  go  to  the  appellate  tribunal  as  an  entirety.^  There 
are,  however,  exceptions  to  this  general  rule  and  in  most,  if 
not  in  all,  of  the  States  provision  is  made  for  appeals  from  in- 
terlocutory orders.  As  a  general  rule — and  the  rule  is  one  of 
wide  sweep — appeals  lie  only  from  final  judgments  or  decrees.^ 
It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  court  of  last  resort  to  determine  for 
itself  its  own  jurisdiction,  and  hence  no  other  tribunal  can  de- 
termine conclusively  whether  a  case  is  or  is  not  appealable.^ 
As  the  appeal  deprives  the  trial  court  of  jurisdiction  and  lodges 
the  case  in  the  appellate  tribunal,  the  trial  court  can  not  take 


292;  Mitchell  v.  United  States,  9  Pet. 
711;  Saltmarsh  v.  Tuthill,  12  How.  U. 
S.  387;  Bronson  v.  La  Crosse,  etc., 
Co.,  1  Wall.  405;  Stewart  v.  Stringer, 
41  Mo.  400,  S.  C.  97  Am.  Dec.  278; 
Helm  V.  Boone,  6  J.  J.  Marsh.  351,  S. 
C.  22  Am.  Dec.  75 ;  Planters  Bank  v. 
Neely,  7  How.  (Miss.)  80,  S.  C.  40 
Am.  Dec.  51 ;  State  v.  Kolsem,  130 
Ind.  434 ;  Elliott's  Appellate  Proced- 
ure, §  541. 

iPittmantJ. Wakefield,  90  Ky.  171, 13 
S.  W.  R.  525 ;  Feder  v.  Field,  117  Ind. 
386;  Clowes  17.  Dickenson,  8  Cowen, 
328;  Kelsey  t\  Western,  2  N.  Y.  500, 
505 ;  Norbury  v.  IMeade,  3  Bligh,  261 ; 
Parker  v.  Morrell,  2  Ph.  Ch.  453, 461 ;  2 
Daniels  Ch.  Pr.  (5th  ed.)  1467;  El- 
liott's Appellate  Procedure,  §  18. 

'Dale  V.  Copple,  53  Mo.  321;  Jones 
V.  Snodgrass,  54  Mo.  597;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Locke,  107  Ind.  9; 
Miller  v.  State,  8  Ind.  325 ;  Walser  v. 
Haley,  61  Mo.  445;  Guardians,  etc., 
Bank  v.  Reilly,  8  Mo.  App.  544 ;  State 
V.  Sutterfield,  54  Mo.  391 ;  Hawkins  v. 
Massie,  62  Mo.  552;  McCollum  v.  Ea- 
ger, 2  How.  (U.  S.)  61;  Walker  v. 
Spencer,  86  N.  Y.  162 ;  Piedmont,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Buxton,  105  N.  C.  74,  S.  C.  11 S. 
E.  R.  264 ;  Home  for  Inebriates  v.  Kap- 
lan, 84Ca].486,  24  Pac.  R.  119;  Davie 


V.  Davie,  52  Ark.  221,  S.  C.  20  Am.  St. 
R.  170 ;  In  re  Davis  Est.,  11  Mont.  1, 27 
Pac.  R.  342.  As  to  what  may  or  may 
not  be  considered  a  final  judgment 
from  which  an  appeal  will  lie,  see 
Farrell  r.  State,  7  Ind.  345;  Johnson 
V.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Minn.  30,  S. 
C.  38  N.W.  R.  804 ;  Kirchner  iJ.Wood, 
48  Mich.  199;  Griffeev.  Mann,  62  Md. 
248;  Rubey  v.  Shain,  51  Mo.  116;  Na- 
tional Banking,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Knaup,  55 
Mo.  154 ;  Lamon  v.  McKee,  7  Mackey, 
447;  In  re  Ohm's  Estate,  82  Cal.  160, 
S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  927;  Logan  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Co.,  132  Pa.  St.  403,  S.  C.  19 
Atl.  R.  137 ;  Forbes  v.  Porter,  23  Fla. 
47,  S.  C.  1  So.  R.  336;  Snavely  v.  Ab- 
bott Buggy  Co.,  36  Kan.  106,  12  Pac. 
R.  522;  Simpson  v.  Kirchbaum,  43 
Kan.  36,  S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  1018;  Dun- 
can V.  Forgey,  25  Mo.  App.  310;  Que- 
bec Bank  v.  Carroll  (So.  Dak.),  44  N. 
W.  R.  723 ;  Red  River  Bank  v.  Free- 
man (N.  Dak.),  46  N.W.  R.  36;  School 
District  of  Adams  County  v.  Cooper, 
29  Neb.  433,  S.  C.  45  N.W.  R.  618.  See, 
for  a  full  collection  of  authorities,  El- 
liott's Appellate  Procedure,  Chap.  V. 
'  Hungerford  v.  Gushing,  8  Wis.  320; 
Benson  v.  Christian,  129  Ind.  535; 
Branson  v.  Studabaker,  133  Ind.  147, 
S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  98. 


§235 


JURISDICTION. 


255 


any  action  in  the  case  proper,^  althoiigli  it  may  act  upon  purely 
collateral  or  supplemental  matters.'^  Aj)pellate  jurisdictic^n  of 
the  general  subject  must  come  from  tlie  law,  for  parties  can 
not  confer  it  by  consent.'  The  general  rule  is  said  to  be  this: 
Where  the  trial  court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  general  sub- 
ject the  appellate  tribunal  acquires  none.^  But  it  is  evident 
tliat  this  statement  requires  qualification,  for  there  must,  of 
necessity,  be  authority  in  the  ai)pellate  tribunal  to  ascertain 
And  decide  whether  the  trial  court  had  jurisdiction  and  to  the 
Rxtent  that  there  is  authority  to  investigate  and  decide,  to  that 
extent  there  is  jurisdiction.  The  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  the 
character  under  immediate  mention  is,  it  is  obvious,  of  the 
narrowest  and  most  limited  nature.  No  appellate  court,  no 
matter  how  exalted  its  rank,  can  do  more  in  such  cases  than 
inquire  into  the  question  of  jurisdiction  and  make  an  order 
disposing  of  the  appeal.'^     AVliere  there  is  no  jurisdiction  of  tlie 


»  Beal  V.  Chase,  31  Mich.  490 ;  Levi 
«.  Karrick,  15  Iowa,  444 ;  McGlaughUn 
V.  O'Rourke,  12  Iowa,  459;  Turner  v. 
First  National  Bank,  26  Iowa,  562. 
See,  generally,  Townsend  v.  Town- 
send,  GO  Mo.  246;  State  i'.  Musick,  71 
Mo.  401 ;  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  20  Mo.  App. 
546 ;  Cralle  v.  Cralle,  81  Va.773 ;  Spears 
B.  Mathews,  66  N.  Y.  127;  Pasour  v. 
Lineberger,  90  N.  C.  159;  Western, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  State,  69  Ga.  524;  Skinner 
V.  Bland,  87  N.  C.  168 ;  Keyser  v.  Farr, 
105  U.  S.  265;  Whaley  v.  Charleston, 
8  So.  Car.  344 ;  Harrison  v.  Trader,  29 
Ark.  85;  Stewart  v.  Taylor,  68  Cal.  5; 
State  V.  Hamill,  6  La.  Ann.  257. 

*  State  V.  Houston,  35  La.  Ann.  236 ; 
State  V.  Clark,  33  La.  Ann.  422 ;  Baugh- 
man  r.  Calveras,  72  Cal.  512;  Moore 
V.  Jordan,  65  Texas,  395;  Goddard  v. 
Ordway,  94  U.  S.  672;  Hinson  v.  Ad- 
rian, 91  N.  C.  372;  Spring  v.  South 
Carolina  Ins.  Co.,  6  Wheat.  519 ;  Board 
V.  Newman,  35  Ind.  10. 

»Mathie  v.  Mcintosh,  40  Wis.  120; 
Kelsey  v.  Forsythe,  21   II  ow.  (U.S.) 


85;  Merrill  v.  Petty,  16  Wall.  338; 
Benford  v.  Daniels,  20  Ala.  445 ;  Ham- 
ilton V.  Buxton,  5  Ark.  400;  People  v. 
Royal,  1  Scam.  (111.)  557  ;  Peak  v.  Peo- 
ple, 71  111.  278;  Smith  r.  Brown,  136 
Mass.  416;  Tippaek  v.  Briant,  63  Mo. 
580;  Phillips  v.  Welch,  11  Nev.  187; 
McFee  v.  Harris,  25  Pa.  St.  102 ;  Whit- 
man V.  Weller,  39  Ind.  515;  Board  v. 
Newman,  35  Ind.  10. 

*  Mays  V.  Dooley,  59  Ind.  287 ;  Pritch- 
ard  V.  Bartholomew,45  Ind.  219 ;  Boggs 
V.  Near,  20  Ind.  395;  Miller  r.  Beal, 
26  Ind.  234 ;  Horton  v.  Sawyer,  59  Ind. 
587.  See,  generally,  Ames  v.  Boland, 
1  Minn.  365;  Ginn  v.  Rogers,  4  Gil. 
(111.)  131  ;  Dicks  v.  Hatch,  10  Iowa, 
380;  Smiths  r.  Dubuque  County,  1  la. 
492;  O'Hagen  v.  O'Hagen,  14  la.  264; 
Cerro  Gordo  County  r. Wright  County, 
59  la.  485;  Groves  v.  Richmond,  53 
Iowa,  570 ;  Knox  r.  Beirne,  4  Ark.  460 ; 
Osgood  i\  Thurston,  23  Pick.  110. 

*  United  States  r.  Huckabee,16  Wall. 
414.  See,  generally.  Ex  parte  Tern,', 
128  U.    S.  289;    Ex  parte    Lange,    18 


256  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  236 

general  subject  a  judgment  is  absolutely  void  and  as  a  void 
thing  is  as  nothing,  it  must  follow  that  all  that  the  appellate 
tribunal  can  do  is  to  ascertain  and  decide  that  there  is  no  ju- 
risdiction, for,  where  there  is  a  void  proceeding,  there  is  noth- 
ing upon  which  jurisdiction  can  fasten. 

§  236.  Original  jurisdiction. — Where  jurisdiction  is  in  the 
first  instance  bestowed  upon  a  court  or  class  of  courts,  it  is 
original.  As  a  rule,  original  jurisdiction  is  conferred  upon  trial 
courts  and  not  upon  appellate  tribunals  or  courts  for  the  cor- 
rection of  errors,  so  that,  when  the  term  "courts  of  original 
jurisdiction"  is  employed  reference  is  usually  made  to  trial 
courts,  but — no  constitutional  provision  forbidding — appellate 
tribunals  may  be  invested  with  some  original  jurisdiction. 
The  two  classes,  appellate  jurisdiction  and  original  jurisdic^ 
tion,  are  so  essentially  different  that  they  can  not,  without  con- 
fusion and  evil,  be  blended  and  their  exercise  be  committed 
to  one  tribunal.^  Where  the  constitution  gives  only  appellate 
jurisdiction  to  a  court  the  legislature  can  not  confer  upon  it 
original  jurisdiction.^  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  all 
judicial  tribunals  of  a  high  rank  possess,  as  an  inherent,  or 
incidental  power,  jurisdiction  that  is  in  its  nature  original, 
but  this  does  not  make  such  tribunals  courts  of  original  juris- 

Wall.  163 ;  Ex  parte  Parks,  93  U.  S.  18 ;  41  Mo.  61 ;  Vail  v.  Dinning,  44  Mo.  210. 

Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  371;  Ex  See,  generally,  Attorney  General  v. 

parte  Fisk,  113  U.  S.  713.  Blossom,  1  Wis.  277;    Attorney  Gen- 

^  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  4  Binney,  eral  v.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  37  Wis.  400, 

117;  State  v.  Stewart,  32  Mo.  379;  Ex  443. 

parte  Logan  Branch,  etc.,  Bank,  1  '^  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264 ; 
Ohio  St.  432 ;  Merrill  v.  Lake,  16  Ohio,  In  re  Metger,  5  How.(U.  S.)176,  191 ;  In 
373 ;  Campbell  v.  Campbell,  22  111.  664 ;  re  Kaine,  14  How.  (U.  S.)  103 ;  Caul- 
Bryant  V.  People,  71  111.  32.  The  field  «.  Hudson,  3  Cal.  390;  Herman- 
courts,  perceiving  the  evil  of  blending  nes  ??.  Simons,  2  Cal.  464;  Parsons?;, 
appellate  and  original  jurisdiction,  Tliorlume,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Cal.  44;  Town- 
have  done  what  they  could  to  prevent  send  v.  Brooks,  5  Cal.  53;  Hodgson  v. 
such  an  amalgamation, and  even  where  Bowerbank,  5  Cranch,  303;  Steamer 
there  was  constitutional  power  to  St.  Lawrence,  1  Black  (U.  S.),  522; 
blend  the  two  jurisdictions  have  given  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  558 ;  People 
statutes  a  very  strict  construction,  v.  Turner,  1  Cal.  143,  S.  C.  52  Am. 
State  V.  Lawrence,  38  Mo.  535 ;  State  Dec.  295. 
V.  Vail,  53  Mo.  97, 107 ;  Foster  v.  State, 


^  237 


JURISDICTION. 


2.: 


diction.  The  jurisdiction  of  appellate  tribunals  which  is  orig- 
inal in  its  nature  is  auxiliary  and  exists  for  the  reason  that 
without  it  such  trihunals  could  not  effectively  exercise  their 
principal  powers.^  This  ancillary  jurisdiction  enables  appellate 
tribunals  to  issue  writs  of  injunction,  of  mandamus  and  other 
writs  in  aid  of  their  appellate  jurisdiction.'^ 

§  237.   Exclusive  jurisdiction  —  Concurrent  Jurisdiction. — 

Where  a  court  is  invested  with  authority  over  a  general  class 
of  cases  and  the  authority  of  other  courts  is  denied,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  the  jurisdiction  is  exclusive.  A  grant 
of  jurisdiction  by  the  constitution  in  affirmative  words  will, 


*  This  doctrine  is  asserted  in  a  very 
strong  opinion  by  Thurman,  J.,  de- 
livered in  the  case  of  Kent  v.  Mahaffy, 
2  Ohio  St.  498.  We  quote  from  that 
•opinion  the  following :  "That  we  can 
not  allow  an  injunction,  in  a  case 
pending  in  this  court,  upon  an  appeal 
is  very  clear.  A  decree  may  be  the 
very  object  of  the  suit — the  final  de- 
cree sought — and  so  a  provisional  in- 
junction, during  the  pendency  of  the 
suit,  may  be  necessary  for  the  pur- 
poses of  justice.  The  power  to  allow 
these  is  a  part  of  the  appellate  juris- 
diction, the  grant  of  which  is  author- 
ized by  the  constitution,  and  has  been 
made  by  the  law.  But  to  allow  an  in- 
junction in  a  suit  pending  in  another 
court  would  be  an  exercise  of  original 
and  not  of  appellate  jurisdiction .  Now, 
the  original  jurisdiction  conferred  up- 
on this  court  by  the  constitution  is 
limited  to  quo  warranto,  mandamns, 
habeas  corpus  and  procedendo,  Art.  IV, 
§  2.  This  is  the  only  original  juris- 
diction granted  by  that  instrument, 
and  it  would  be  wholly  inconsistent 
with  and,  in  a  great  measure,  destruc- 
tive of  the  judicial  system  it  ordains, 
to  suppose  that  this  original  jurisdic- 
tion can  be   enlarged  by  law.     It  is 

17 


true  there  is  no  express  prohibition 
against  it,  but  none  was  necessary. 
We  can  exercise  only  such  powers  as 
the  constitution  itself  confers,  or  au- 
thorizes the  legislature  to  grant.  We 
can  derive  no  power  elsewhere.  It 
follows  that,  to  negative  the  existence 
of  a  power  it  is  not  necessary  to  show 
that  it  is  forbidden  by  the  constitution. 
It  is  sufficient  that  that  instrument 
neither  directly  nor  indirectly  confers 
it."  Much  to  the  same  effect  is  the 
language  of  the  court  in  Campbell  v. 
Campbell,  22  111.  G64,  where  it  was 
said:  "Now,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  original  applications  for  injunc- 
tion is  an  exercise  of  the  appellate  ju- 
risdiction of  this  court,  we  can  not  act. 
That  it  is  not  such  an  exercise  no  one 
will  deny.  Emphatically  this  is  an 
appellate  court  only,  having  original 
jurisdiction  in  a  few  specified  cases." 
"Sheeks  v.  Fillion,  29  N.  E.  R.  443; 
Leech  v.  State,  78  Ind.  570,  579;  Fish 
V.  AVeatherwax,  2  Johns.  Cases,  215; 
Ex  parte  Parker,  131  U.  S.  221;  State 
V.  Kansas  City  Court,  97  I\Io.  331,  S. 
C.  10  S.  W.  R.  855.  See  authorities 
cited  in  Elliott's  Appellate  Procedure, 
^  512.  But  see,  contra,  Hicks  v,  Mi- 
chael, 15  Cal.  107,  114. 


258  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  237 

although  there  are  no  negative  restraining  words,  create  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction,  for  the  rule  in  such  cases  is,  that  the  express 
mention  of  one  thing  implies  the  exclusion  of  all  others.^  The 
same  doctrine  applies  where  the  jurisdiction  is  defined  by  stat- 
ute, but  not,  perhaps,  with  quite  so  much  force. '•^  Where  there 
is  a  grant  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  a  general  class  of  cases 
to  a  permanent  judicial  tribunal,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that 
as  to  the  general  class  of  cases  the  jurisdiction  is  so  far  gen- 
eral as  to  be  of  a  superior  nature,  but,  as  we  have  elsewhere 
said,  the  overwhelming  weight  of  authority  is  that  the  scope 
or  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  is  not  the  test,  for  that  is  the 
rank  or  dignity  of  the  court.  Where,  however,  exclusive  ju- 
risdiction is  conferred  upon  a  court,  no  matter  what  its  rank, 
no  other  tribunal,  however  high  its  position,  can  share  in  that 
jurisdiction. '"^  Concurrent  jurisdiction  exists  where  jurisdiction 
over  a  general  subject  or  general  class  of  cases  is  vested  in  two 
or  more  tribunals,  so  that  with  reference  to  that  class  or  sub- 
ject their  authority  is  substantially  the  same.  As  the  author- 
ity of  courts  possessing  concurrent  jurisdiction  is  of  equal  dig- 
nity, one  of  such  courts  can  not  control  the  other,  nor  interfere 
with  the  execution  of  its  process.*  Courts  of  concurrent  juris- 
diction are  tribunals  of  co-ordinate  powers,  and,  although  as 
courts,  each  has  a  separate  and  distinct  existence,  they  possess 
a  common  jurisdiction;  that  is,  their  general  jurisdiction  is  in 
common  but  their  particular  jurisdiction,  that  is,  jurisdiction 

»  Page  V.  Allen,  58  Pa.  St.  338,  S.  C.  373;  Aldrich  v.  Hawkins,  6  Blkf.  125; 

98  Am.  Dec.  272 ;  State  v.  Yancey,  121  Chandler  v.  Hanna,  73  Ala.  390 ;  Dod- 

Ind.  20;  City  of  Evansville  v.  Blend,  son  v.  Scroggs,  47  Mo.  285;  Randle  v. 

118  Ind.  426.  Williams,  18  Ark.  380.     See,  general- 

'Macklot  V.  Davenport,  17  la.  379;  ly,  Greene  v.  Mumford,  4  R.  I.  313; 

Riggs  V.  Johnson  County,  6  Wall.  166;  Kimber  v.  Schuylkill  County,  20  Pa. 

Rossett  V.  State,  17  Ala.  496;  Rex  v.  St.  366;  Town  of  Ottawa  ij.  Walker,  21 

Robinson,   2  Burr,  799;    Camden  v.  111.605;  State  v.  Danser,  3  Zabr.  (N. 

Allen,  26  N.  J.  L. 398;  Peoples.  Kelly,  J.)  552;  Little  v.  Greenleaf,  7  Mass. 

38  Cal.  148,  151 ;  United  States  v.  Cor-  236. 

nell,  2  Mason,  91 ;  Smith  v.  Lockwood,  ^  Wilson  v.  Mason,  3  Ark.  494;  Ari- 

13  Barb.  209;  Miller  v.  Miller,  44  Pa.  zona  v.  Mix,  1  Ariz.  52. 

St.  170, 172 ;  Smith  v.  Stevens,  10  Wall.  « Ante,  §  193.     Post,  §  248. 
321 ;  New  Haven  v.  Whitney,  36  Conn. 


§  238  jURisDicTiox.  259 

of  particular  instances  or  cases,  is  distributed.  When  juris- 
diction over  a  particular  case  or  matter  is  once  fully  acquired, 
that  jurisdiction  is  complete  and  exclusive,  and  covers  the  en- 
tire case  or  controversy  as  completely  as  if  there  were  no  courts 
of  co-ordinate  jurisdiction. 

§  238.  Jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject. — We  have  in  a 
great  measure  anticipated  a  discussion  of  the  topic  to  which 
this  paragraph  is  devoted,  but  this  seemed  unavoidable,  and 
may,  perliaps,  be  excused  for  the  reason  that  there  is  almost 
impenetrable  confusion  and  obscurity  in  the  adjudged  cases. 
The  importance  of  the  subject  and  the  difficulty  it  presents 
make  its  consideration  a  perplexing  task.  The  term  "juris- 
diction of  the  subject-matter  of  the  action"  is  frequently  em- 
ployed, and  it  is  often  asserted  tliat  it  means  the  subject  of  the 
particular  instance  or  case.^  We  think  the  term  "subject-mat- 
ter" has  a  wider  meaning  than  that  usually  assigned  to  it,  and 
we  also  think  that  the  term  itself  is  not  well  chosen.  We  pre- 
fer the  term  "the  general  subject,"  inasmuch  as  it  has  a  more 
comprehensive  meaning  than  the  term  "the  subject-matter." 
The  term  "the  general  subject"  implies  that  it  stands  for 
a  class  or  division,  while  the  term  "subject-matter"  im- 
plies that  there  is  only  a  single  case  or  instance.  The  term 
"subject-matter"  also  implies  that  to  constitute  jurisdiction 
in  the  general  sense  there  must  be  a  concrete  matter  or  case, 
whereas  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject  is  in  the  nature  of 
an  abstract  right  or  power. ^     The  subject,  or  general  subject, 

>  Goodman  v.  Winter,  fi4  Ala.  410;  Ann.  793;  Gilliland  r.  Sellers,  2  Ohio 

Bell  V.  Craig,  52  Ala.  215;  Pickens  v.  St.  223;  Block  v.   Henderson,  82  Ga. 

Yarbrough,  30  Ala.  408 ;  Williamson  v.  23,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  138 ;  Burnley  v. 

Ross,  33  Ala.  509;  McCorkle  v.  Rhea,  Cook,  13  Tex.  586,  S.  C.  65  Am.  Dec. 

75  Ala.  213;  Brownfield  v.  Weicht  9  79. 

Ind.394;  Franklin  r.  SatterfielcHDel.),  '  In  Yates  r.  Lansing,  5  Johns.  282, 

19Atl.  R.  898;  Ponce  r.  Underwood,  the  court  said :     "By  subject-matter  is 

55  Ga.  601 ;  Swiggart  v.  Harber,  4  Scam,  meant  the  abstract  thing  and  not  the 

(111.)  364,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  418 ;  Bev-  particular  case."  The  subject  was  well 

erly  v.  Burke,  9  Ga.  440,  S.  C.  54  Am.  discussed  in  Holmes  r.  Holmes, 4  Lans. 

Dec.  351;  Eaton  v.  Badger,  33  N.  H.  388;  it  was  held  that  jurisdiction  of  the 

228;    Wamsley  v.   Robinson,   28  La.  subject-matter  is  not  confined  within 


260  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  239 

is  the  field  over  which  the  authority  of  the  court  extends,  and 
while  the  court  keeps  within  that  field,  it  neither  usurps  au- 
thority nor  does  a  thing  it  is  without  rightful  power  to  do. 
Jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter  is  not  confined  to  spots  within 
the  jurisdictional  field,  nor  to  parts  of  that  field,  but  it  extends 
to  the  whole  field,  however  wide  it  may  be.  The  court  may, 
it  is  true,  so  exercise  its  authority  as  to  render  its  proceedings 
erroneous,  but  so  long  as  it  keeps  within  the  scope  of  its  au- 
thority it  acts  within  its  jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction  of  the  gen- 
eral subject  is  authority  over  a  general  class  of  cases,  no  mat- 
ter how  numerous  its  members  may  be.^  If  it  be  found  that 
the  individual  case  before  the  court  for  judgment  is  a  member 
of  the  class,  then  that  case  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  subject.  There  may,  of  course,  be  grounds  for  deny- 
ing the  right  to  proceed  to  judgment  in  such  a  case,  or  for 
affirming  that  the  proceedings  are  void,  but  neither  the  denial 
nor  the  affirmation  can  be  rested  upon  the  ground  that  there  is 
no  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject. 

§  239.  Jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject. — It  is  some- 
times essential  to  the  regularity  and  validity  of  a  judgment  that 
there  should  be  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  thing  or  subject, 
but  we  do  not  believe  that  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject 
is  always  essential  to  the  existence  of  jurisdiction  of  the  general 

the  particular  facts  which  must  be  ^  Mr.  Timothy  Brown  says :  "Juris- 
shown  before  a  court  or  judge  to  make  diction  over  the  subject-matter  is  the 
out  a  specific  and  immediate  cause  of  right  of  the  court  to  exercise  judicial 
action.  It  is  as  extensive  as  the  gen-  power  over  that  class  of  cases;  not 
eral  or  abstract  question  which  falls  the  particular  case  before  it,  but  rather 
within  the  power  of  the  officer  or  tri-  the  abstract  power  to  try  a  case  of  the 
bunal  to  act  concerning  it.  See,  also,  kind  or  character  of  the  case  pending, 
People  V.  Baker,  76  N.Y.  78 ;  People,  ex  and  not  whether  the  particular  case  is 
rel.,v.  Hall,  80  N. Y.  117 ;  Lange  v.  Ben-  one  that  presents  a  cause  of  action,  or 
edict,  73  N.  Y.  12;  Groenvelt  v.  Bur-  under  the  particular  facts  is  triable  by 
Avell,  1  La.  Rayn.  4G6,  467;  States,  the  court  in  which  it  is  pending,  be- 
Wolever,  127  Ind.  306;  Chicago,  etc.,  cause  of  some  inherent  facts  which  ex- 
Co.  V.  Sutton,  130  Ind.  405,  410;  Jack-  ist  and  may  be  developed  during  the 
son  V.  Smith,  120  Ind.  520;  Perkins u.  trial."  Brown  on  Jurisdiction,  §  1  a. 
Hayward,  132  Ind.  95,  104 ;  McCoy  v. 
A-ble,  131  Ind.  417. 


§  239 


JIKISDHTION. 


201 


subject.  For  the  purpose  of  making  our  meaning  clear,  it  is 
necessary  to  repeat  the  familiar  rule  that  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  subject  can  not  be  waived,  inasmuch  as  it  enables  us 
to  prove  that  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject  is  not  the 
same  thing  as  jurisdiction  of  tlie  general  subject,  or,  to  employ 
the  old  phrase,  the  subject-matter.  It  is  held  by  all  the  well- 
considered  cases  that  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject  may 
be  waived.  Thus,  where  there  is  general  jurisdiction  of  actions 
of  replevin,  but  it  is  required  that  the  property  in  controversy 
should  be  in  the  county  where  the  action  is  brought,  a  judg- 
ment is  not  void  although  rendered  in  a  county  different  from 
that  in  which  the  property  was  when  the  action  was  commenced 
and  judgment  rendered.^  Where  the  locality  of  the  cause  of 
action  determines  the  jurisdiction  the  objection  to  jurisdiction, 
if  not  seasonably  interposed,  is  deemed  waived.^  In  the  class 
of  cases  heretofore  referred  to,  that  is,  where  parties  proceed 
in  equity  where  the  jurisdiction  is  in  the  law  courts,  a  failure 
to  seasonably  and  appropriately  object  is  a  waiver.^     The  En- 


'  Robinson  v.  Shatzley,  75  Ind.  4<)1  ; 
Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  38 
Mich.  461 ;  Gott  v.  Brigham,  45  Mich. 
424. 

'  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Solomon, 
23  Ind.  534.  In  the  case  cited  it  was 
said:  "But  the  want  of  jurisdiction 
because  the  action  is  local,  and  has 
been  brought  in  the  wrong  county,  and 
the  want  of  jurisdiction  because  the 
court  has  no  power  and  authority  to 
adjudicate  upon  the  subject  involved 
in  the  action,  are  two  very  dif- 
ferent things.  In  the  latter  case  it 
was  always  and  necessarily  the  rule  of 
law  that  the  consent  of  parties  could 
not  confer  jurisdiction,  for  the  reason 
that  in  any  event  the  court  was  not  by 
law  deemed  competent  to  be  intrusted 
with  the  question,  and  therefore  its 
proceedings  were  corom  nonjudice,  and 
utterly  void,  and  the  parties  could  not 
by  agreement  give  faculties  to  the  court 
which  the   law   had   withheld.     But 


where  the  court  was  by  law  competent 
to  entertain  the  question  involved  and 
was  only  deprived  of  jurisdiction  be- 
cause the  action  was  local,  and  re- 
quired to  be  brought  in  another  coun- 
ty, it  was  always  held  that  the  objec- 
tion could  be  waived.  Tidd,  9th  ed., 
606;  Co.  Lit.  125  b,  126  a,  note  1.  Our 
code  (§  54),  providing  that  the  objec- 
tion to  the  jurisdiction  shall  be  deemed 
waived,  unless  taken  by  demurrer  or 
answer,  except  where  the  court  has 
no  jurisdiction  over  the  stibject,  was 
adopted  in  view  of  the  common  law, 
and  changes  the  rule  previously  exist- 
ing, which  required  the  waiver  of  ob- 
jection to  the  jurisdiction,  on  account 
of  the  venue,  to  appear  of  record  af- 
firmatively.    1  Chit.  PI.  268." 

3  Grandin  r.  Le  Roy.  2  Paige  Ch.  509 ; 
Le  Roy  r.Plate,4  Paige  Ch.77 ;  Truscott 
V.  King,  6  N.Y.  147;  Cox  v.  James,  4r> 
N.  Y.  557;  Green  v.  Milbank,  3  Abb. 
New  Cases,  138;    Pam  v.  Vilmar,  54 


262  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  240 

glish  courts,  enforcing  the  distinction  between  jurisdiction  of  the 
particular  subject  and  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,  hold 
that  consent  may  give  jurisdiction  in  actions  to  recover  possession 
of  land  brought  in  a  county  different  from  that  in  which  the  land 
lies.^  In  other  cases  it  has  been  held  that  where  there  is  general 
jurisdiction  to  order  the  sale  of  lands,  but  the  jurisdiction  is  de- 
clared to  be  in  the  county  where  the  land  is  situated,  orders  made 
by  a  court  not  sitting  in  such  a  county  are  not  void.^  Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  particular  subject  is  authority  in  the  concrete,  whereas 
jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject  is  authority  in  the  abstract,  and 
jurisdiction  in  the  abstract  may  exist  although  in  the  concrete 
particular  facts  may  show  that  it  can  not  be  exercised.  The  con- 
tention that  there  is  a  concrete  jurisdiction  of  a  general  nature 
asserts  much  the  same  fallacious  doctrine  as  did  the  advocates 
of  the  doctrine  of  realism  in  their  contests  with  the  nominalists. 
It  seems  to  us  that  jurisdiction  in  the  abstract  is  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  jurisdiction  in  the  concrete,  and  if  this  be  granted 
it  must  follow  that  there  are  two  divisions  of  jurisdiction  in 
which  the  subject  is  concerned,  and  that  one  of  those  divisions 
is  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject. 

§  240.   Distinction  between  Jurisdiction  of  a  general  subject 

How.   Pr.   235;  Buffalo,    etc.,    Co.   v.  444;    Loeb   v.   Mathis,   37   Ind.   306; 
Delaware,etc.,Co.,130N.Y.152,  29N.E.  Ham  v.  Rogers,  6  Blckf,  559. 
R.  121 ;  Amis  v.  Myers,  16  How.  (U.  ^  Stark  v.   Ratcliff,    111  111.  75,  81 ; 
S.),  492,  493;  Bank  of  Utica  v.  Merse-  Ryan  v.  Jackson,  11  Tex.  391 ;  Pinck- 
reau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528;  Cummings  ■;;.  ney  tJ.  Hagerman,  4  Lans.  374;  Black- 
Mayor,  11  Paige,  596 ;  Creely  v.  Bay  mar  v.  Van  Inwagen,  5  How.  Pr.  3G7 ; 
State,  etc.,  Co.,  103  Mass.  514;  Sexton  Geller  v.  Hoyt,  7  How.  Pr.  265.     See, 
V.  Pike,  13  Ark.  193;  Parker  v.  Win-  generally,  Regina  v.  Bolton,  1  Ad.  & 
ipicogee  Co.,  2  Black  (U.  S.), 545, 551;  E.  (N.S.)66,  72;  Robinson  v.  Epping, 
Hipp  V.  Babin,  19  How.  271,  277,  278.  24  Fla.  237,  S.   C.  4  So.  R.  812,  822 
Ante,  §  229.  Arnold  v.   Arnold,   62  Ga.  627,  636 
'  Furnival  v.  Stringer,  1  Bing.  N.  C.  Murphy  v.  Creighton,  45  Iowa,  179 
68 ;  Andrewes  v.  Elliott,  6  E.  &  B.  338 ;  Gilchrist  v.  Williams,  1  B.  Mon.  133 
Tyerman  v.  Smith,  6  E.  &  B.  719,  724 ;  O'Conner  v.  Huggins,  113  N.  Y.  511,  S. 
Lawrence  v.  Wilcock,  11  A.  &  E.  941;  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  184;  Sullivan  v.  Fos- 
Vansittart  v.  Taylor,  4  E.  &  B.  910;  dick,  10  Hun,  173,  180.     But  see,  con- 
Fineux  v.  Hovenden,  Cro.  Eliz.  664;  tra,  Hopkins  v.  Meir  (N.  J.  Eq.),  19 
Crow  V.  Edwards,  Hobart[5b].     But  Atl.  R.  264;  Spencer  v.  Jennings,  114 
thisdoctrineisopposedby  many  cases.  Pa.  St.  618,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  2. 
New  Albany,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Huff,  19  Ind. 


§  240  JLKISDICTION.  263 

and  Jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject. — In  the  preceding 
paragraph  we  have  endeavored  to  show  that  one  species  of  ju- 
risdiction is  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject,  and  we  shall 
now  attempt  to  show  the  distinction  between  that  species  and 
tlie  species  we  have  ventured  to  call  jurisdiction  of  the  general 
subject.  We  suppose  that  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject 
is  so  essentially  different  from  jurisdiction  of  the  person  that 
at  present  we  need  do  no  more  than  barely  advert  to  that  dif- 
ference, but  it  is  important  that  we  here  allude  to  it,  for  the 
.reason  that  it  enables  us  to  direct  attention  to  the  fact  that 
where  there  is  general  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  and  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  person  there  exists  authority  to  adjudicate  as  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject.  These  two  elements  be- 
ing present  the  court  has  rightful  authority  to  proceed,  and  if 
it  has  such  authority  there  is  jurisdiction,  so  that  incidental  or 
minor  matters  may,  in  the  absence  of  objections,  be  adjudicated. 
Thus,  in  the  class  of  cases  cited  in  the  note  to  the  preceding 
paragraph  the  court  having  jurisdiction  over  the  general  sub- 
ject has  authority  to  decide  whether  there  are  assets  of  the 
estate  in  the  county,  for  the  existence  of  assets  is  the  particular 
subject  and  the  matter  of  decedents'  estates  the  general  sub- 
ject.^ An  objection  that  there  is  no  jurisdiction  of  the  general 
subject  goes  to  the  competency  of  the  court  to  act  at  all  and 
denies  its  authority  to  proceed  in  the  cause,  whereas,  an  objec- 
tion that  there  is  no  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject  only 

1  The  general  doctrine  of  the  text  is  425,  8   So.  R.   195 ;    Holmes  v.  Rail- 
asserted  in  the  cases  which  hold  that  road  Company,  9  Fed.  R.  229;  How- 
jurisdiction     to     determine    whether  bert  v.  Heyle,  47  Kan.  58,  S.  C.  27 
there  are  assets  in  the  county  is  so  far  Pac.  R.  116 ;  Higgins  v.  Reed,  48  Kan 
jurisdiction  that  the  proceedings  can  272,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  389.     See,  gen 
not  be  assailed  in  a  collateral  pro-  erally,  Broderick's  Will,  21  AVall.  503 
ceeding.     Calloway  r.  Cooley  (Kan.),  State  v.   McGlynn,  20  Cal.  233,  268 
32  Pac.  R.  372,  citing,  Stanly  v.  Morse,  Hegarty's  Appeal,  75  Pa.  St.  503,  513 
26  Iowa,  454;  Roberts  v.  Flannagan,  Tlilliard  v.  Binford.  10  Ala.  977,  983 
21    Neb.  503,  32  N.  W.  R.  563;  Lor-  Winslow  v.  Donnelly,  119   Ind,  565 
ing  V.    Arnold,  15   R.    I.  428,  8  Atl.  Robertson  r.  Pickrell.  109  U.  S.  608 
335;    In  re.  Shoenberger's   Est.,    139  Harris  v.   Harris,  61  Ind.  117;  In  re 
Pa.   St.    132,   20  Atl.  R.  1050;   Gold-  :\Iatterof  the  Will  of  Warfield,  22  Cal. 
tree  v.  McAllister,  68  Cal.  93,  23  Pac.  51,  S.  C.  83  Am.  Dec.  49. 
R,    207;    Dickey    v.  Vann,   81    Ala. 


264  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  240 

challenges  the  authority  of  the  tribunal  to  assume  control  over 
the  particular  subject  of  the  special  case  or  controversy.  In 
the  one  class,  the  denial  is  general  and  sweeping  inasmuch  as. 
it  is  an  assertion  that  there  is  no  authority  over  the  general 
class  of  cases  to  which  the  particular  case  belongs,  whereas  a 
denial  of  jurisdiction  of  a  particular  subject  impliedly  concedes 
the  existence  of  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class,  but  asserts 
that  for  some  cause  peculiar  to  the  special  instance  there  is  no 
jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject.  It  can  not  be  justly  af- 
firmed that  there  is  no  court  where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  a- 
general  class  of  cases,  but  this  may  be  justly  affirmed  where 
there  is  no  such  jurisdiction,  for  as  to  a  matter  over  which 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  authority  it  is  as  if  there  were  no 
court.  It  is  strictly  correct,  therefore,  to  affirm  that  where 
there  is  no  authority  over  the  general  class  of  cases  the  pro- 
ceedings are  coram  non  judice.  Where,  however,  there  is  such 
authority  it  can  not  be  justly  asserted,  since  there  is  a  court  in 
all  that  the  term  implies,  but  as  to  the  particular  subject  the 
court  is  not  authorized  to  act.  As  illustrating  the  difference 
between  jurisdiction  of  a  general  subject  and  jurisdiction  of  a 
particular  subject,  reference  may  be  had  to  those  cases  wherein 
it  is  adjudged  that  the  grant  of  letters  of  administration  to  a 
person  not  eligible  to  appointment  is  not  void,^  for  in  all  such 

•  Fisher  v.  Bassett,  9  Leigh.  119,  S.  2  Salk.  674.     Judges  Parker  and  Allen 

C.  33  Am.  Dec.  227;  Burnley's  Repre-  also  gave  opinions  in  Fisher  v.  Bas- 

sentative  v.  Duke,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  102;  sett,  and  it  was  said  by  the  former: 

Carter's  Heirs  v.  Cutting,  8  Cranch,  "The  distinction  between  the  acts  of 

251;  Schultz  T.  Schultz,  10  Gratt.  358,  a  court  having  jurisdiction  over  the 

S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  335.     In  Fisher  v.  subject-matter    under    some    circum- 

Bassett,   Judge  Tucker  said:      "But  stances,  and  those  of  one  which,  in  no 

where  the  court  has  jurisdiction  of  possible  state  of  things,  can  take  juris- 

cases,    ejusdem   generis,   its  judgment  diction   over  the  subject,  is  a  sound 

in  any  case  is  not  void,  because  its  and    sufficiently    intelligible    one    to 

validity  can  not  appear  without  an  in-  guide  our  judgments  in  the   present 

quiry  into  the  facts,  an  inquiry  which  case.     If  under  any  circumstances  the 

the  court  itself  must  be  presumed  to  hustings  court  could  grant  administra- 

have  made,    and  which  will  not  be  tion  to  Scott,  it  had  jurisdiction  of  the 

permitted  Lo  be  reviewed  coll  ate  rally."  subject,  and  must  judge  of  those  cir- 

The  learned  judge  cites  as  sustaining  cumstances.     If  it  erred  in  determin- 

his  views  the  case  of  Prigg  v.  Adams,  ingthat  the  facts  upon  which  its  power 


§  240  JURISDICTION.  265 

cases  the  principle  upon  which  the  distinction  rests  is  declared 
and  enforced.  The  principle  enforced  is  that  where  there  is 
authority  to  make  a  judicial  inquiry  there  is  jurisdiction,  and 
it  is  evident  thut  this  authority  exists  wherever  tliere  is  power 
over  a  general  class  of  cases.  The  authority  exercised  in  de- 
termining whether  a  person  can  be  an  administrator  in  a  State 
where  certain  persons  are  absolutely  forbidden  from  acting  in 
that  capacity  is  not,  in  principle  or  essence,  different  from  an 
inquiry  into  the  right  of  the  court  to  assume  authority  over  a 
thing  or  subject  involved  in  a  particular  case  having  the  gen- 
eral characteristics  or  features  of  a  member  of  a  general  class 
of  cases.  The  object  of  investing  courts  with  jurisdiction  of  a 
general  class  is  to  enable  them  to  investigate  and  determine 
all  controversies  arising  in  cases  of  the  class,  and  to  accom- 
plish this  object  it  is  necessary  that  tlie  court  should  have 
power  to  inquire  whether  the  particular  subject  is  such  as  may 
be  considered  as  appertaining  to  any  case  of  the  general  class. 
"Where  the  end  is  conceded,  the  means  of  arriving  at  it  are 
granted,"  and  it  must  be  conceded  that  where  there  is  juris- 
diction of  a  general  subject  there  is  authority  to  inquire  as  to 
whether  a  particular  subject  falls  within  the  general  range  of  the 

tfi  grant  administration  in  the  partic-  it  must  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 

ular  case   depended    were  proved,  it  court  did  make  inquiry  and  did  judge 

was  an  error  to  be  corrected  by  some  of   those   circumstances,    so  that  the 

competent  authority ;  but  until  so  cor-  question  of  jurisdiction  entered  into 

rected,  it  conferred  upon  Scott  all  the  and  became  an  essential  part  of  the 

powers  of  a  rightful  administrator."  judgment  of  the  court,  and  if  it  erred 

The  latter  said:     "Whether  the  par-  in  its  judgment  in  this  respect  or  oth- 

ticular  state  of  facts   existed   which  erwise,  the  error  was  one  which  must 

would  have  authorized  the   court  to  be  corrected  by  some  competent  au- 

grant  administration  originally,  was  a  thority  upon  a  proper  proceeding.  The 

matterto  be  inquired  into  and  decided  judgment  can  not  be  held  void  ipso 

by  the  court,  and  the  decision,  if  er-  facto,  bei-ause  an  inquiry  is  necessary 

roneous,  would  be  voidable  only,  and  to  ascertain  its   invalidity ;  and   this 

not  void."     Much  to  the  same  effect  is  inquiry  will  not  be  permitted  to  be 

the  language  of  the  court  in  Schultz  v.  made  collaterally ;  and  being  voidable 

Schultz,  supra,  where  it  was  said  by  only  and  not  void,  it  must  remain  in 

the  court:     "And  as  the  court  had  a  full  force  and  effect  as  evidence  or  oth- 

general  jurisdiction  over  cases  ejusdcm  erwise  until  reversed  or  in  some  way 

generis,  under  certain  circumstances,  annulled  by  a  proper  proceeding." 


266  THE    WOilK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  240 

major  subject.^  Another  class  of  cases  is  illustrative  of  the 
general  doctrine  and  that  is  the  class  in  which  upon  a  change 
of  venue  the  case  is  sent  to  a  court  different  from  the  one  to 
which  the  statute  directs  the  case  to  be  sent,  for,  if  there  is 
general  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  and  jurisdiction  is  assumed, 
the  judgment  of  the  court  to  which  the  case  is  transmitted  is 
not  void.-  The  doctrine  which  we  advocate  is  not  opposed  to 
those  cases  which  hold  that  where  a  court  can  not  make  a  rec- 
ord there  is  no  jurisdiction,^  for  where  there  is  authority  over 
a  general  class  of  cases  a  record  may  be  made,  although  it  may 
be  an  erroneous  one.  But  we  do  not  believe  the  doctrine  so 
broadly  asserted  by  some  of  the  cases  is  sound.*  The  authority 
to  make  a  record  in  any  one  of  a  general  class  may,  perhaps, 
be  regarded  as  a  test  of  jurisdiction,  but  we  do  not  believe  that 
authority  to  make  a  record  in  a  special  or  particular  member  of  a 
general  class  is  a  test.  If,  to  illustrate,  a  court  having  only 
criminal  jurisdiction  should  assume  by  an  assertion  of  power, 
to  make  a  record  in  a  civil  case,  then  the  record  no  matter 
what  it  contained  would  be  entirely  destitute  of  force  for  the 
reason  that  it  was  one  that  the  court  could  not  make  in  any 
case  belonging  to  the  general  class  of  cases  called  civil,  since 

'  Mr.  Brown  suggests  the  distinction  '  Starbuck  v.  Murray,  5  Wend.  148. 

we  are  here  attempting  to  point  out.  *  Roberts  v.  Caldwell,  5  Dana,  512 

He  says:     "But  the  suVjject-matter  of  Eitel  v.  Foote,  39  Cal.  439;   Harnish  v 

the  controversy  does  not  relate  to  the  Branier,71  Cal.  155,  S.C.  11  Pac.  R.  888 

particular  case  before  the  court,  but  Bridgeport  Savings  Bank  v.  Eldredge 

whether  the  court  has  power  to  try  an  28  Conn.  556,562,  S.C.  73  Am.  Dec.  688 

issue  involving  the  same  subject,  as  in  Osgood  v.  Blackmore,  59  111.  261 ;  Rum- 

an  indictment  for  murder  alleged  to  felt  ??.  O'Brien,  57  Mo.  569;  Lingo  v. 

have  been  committed  in  'A' county,  Binford  (Mo.),  18  S.W.  R.  1081 ;  Har- 

the  court  having  general  criminal  ju-  ris  v.  McClanahan,  79  Tenn.  (11  Lea), 

risdiction  to  try  it ;  and  if  the  evidence  181 ;  Letney  v.  Marshall,  79  Tex.  513,  S. 

showed  the  crime  was  committed  in  C.  15S.W.  R.586;  Marrow  ?».  Brinkley, 

'B'  county,  this  would  be  a  failure  of  85  Va.  55,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  605;    Doe 

proof  of  the  allegation  of  venue,  but  v.  State  Bank,  4  McLean  (U.  S.C.C), 

not  a  question  that  could  be  raised  by  339;  Colt  v.  Colt,  48  Fed.  R.  385.    But 

habeas  corpus  before  the  trial  or  after,  see,  Adams  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

but    should    be    raised    on    appeal."  N.  Y.  328;  Ferguson  v.  Crawford,  70 

Brown  on  Jurisdiction,  §  10.  N.Y.  253;  Pollard  v.  Wagener,  13  Wis. 

»  Coleman  v.  Floyd,  131  Ind.  330  509,  573;  Goudy  v.  Hall,  30  111.  109. 


§  241  JURISDICTION.  2G7 

of  no  one  of  such  cases  could  it  possibly  have  jurisdiction.     If 
a  court  having  general  jurisdiction  of  a  class  of  actions  should 
make  a  record  in  any  one  of  that  class  the  record  could  not  be 
justly  said  to  be  made  without  power  although  it  might  be  true 
that  there  was  a  wrongful  exercise  of  authority  in  the  particu- 
lar instance.^     The  assertion  of  authority  need  not  be  regular 
or  its  exercise  rightful  in  order  to  give  jurisdiction  and  warrant 
the  making  of  an  effective   record  in  the  particular  instance, 
but  it  is  sufficient  if  there  is  authority  to  move  in  the  general 
class  of  cases,  for,  if  there  is  authority,  no  matter  how  irregu- 
lar the  movement  or  how  erroneous  the  procedure,  there  is 
such  jurisdiction  as  will  render  a  judgment  effective  as  against 
a  collateral  assault.     In  other  words  the  judgment  will  not  be 
void  although  it  may  be  voidable.     If,  for  instance,  the  court 
has  authority  to  determine  all  matters  relating  to  the  sale  of 
decedents'  land,  but  can  order  a  sale  only  where  there  are  no 
personal  assets,  its  judgment  is  not  void,  although  there  were 
in  fact  personal  assets. ^     In  such  a  case,  as  in  others  already 
cited,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class  gives  authority  to 
decide  whether  it  can  be  exercised  over  the  particular  subject. 

§  241.    Equity  Jurisdiction.  —  Equity   jurisdiction   may   be 

'  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  here  repeal  cisiun  on  a  jurisdictional  question  with 
what  was  said  in  the  opening  of  this  the  right  to  decide.  If  there  is  author- 
paragraph.  We  assume  in  our  discus-  ity  to  decide  then,  no  matter  what  the 
sion  that  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  characterof  the  decision  may  be,  there 
person,  for,  if  there  is  not  jurisdiction  is  jurisdiction.  A  right  to  decide  is  all 
of  the  person,  and  that  fact  appears,  that  is  essential  to  jurisdiction,  but  a 
much  that  we  have  said  would  not  be  right  decision  is  essential  to  the  valid- 
correct.  But  upon  the  assumption  that  ity  of  the  proceedings  when  api>ropri- 
there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  person  we  ately  assailed  by  a  direct  attack, 
think  it  clear  that  it  is  not  necessary  Given  a  right  or  opportunity  to  defend 
as  a  general  rule  that  the  record  and  authority  over  a  general  class, 
should  show  jurisdiction  of  the  par-  there  is  always  jurisdiction  of  a  par- 
ticular subject.  ticular  member  of  the  class,  but  that 
"Atkins  r.  Kinnan,  20  "Wend.  241,  jurisdiction  may  be  so  exercised  as  to 
S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  534;  Jackson  v.  make  the  proceedings  voidable.  This 
Robinson,  4  AVend.  43(>;  Jackson  r.  doctrine  may,  doubtless,  be  modified 
Crawfords,  12  Wend.  533;  Brown  v.  by  an  explicit  and  positive  statute,  but 
Cocking,  L.  R.,  3  Q.  B.  672,  675.  We  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  we  think  it 
venture  to  say  that  one  great  cause  of  is  the  only  doctrine  that  can  bo  sus- 
error  is  the  confounding  of  a  right  do-  tained  on  principle. 


268  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  241 

roughly  defined  to  be  the  field  over  which  the  authority  of  the 
courts  of  equity  extends.^  This  definition,  although  it  makes 
no  pretensions  to  strict  accuracy  or  exactness,  is  sufficient  for 
our  purpose.  All  courts,  whether  of  law  or  equity,  act  within 
general  or  specific  limitations,  and  these  limitations  are,  it 
may  not  be  too  bold  to  say,  the  fences  which  enclose  or  mark 
the  boundaries  of  their  jurisdictional  domain.  As  is  true  of 
law  jurisdiction,  the  jurisdiction  of  equity  is  determined  by  a 
decision  of  the  question  whether  the  particular  case  in  which 
the  court  is  asked  to  pronounce  a  decree  is  a  member  of  a  gen- 
eral class  over  which  the  courts  of  equity  have  authority. 
Whether  relief  shall  be  granted  or  denied  in  a  particular  in- 
stance is  not  the  test  of  jurisdiction.^  Thus,  if  a  bill  is  filed 
asking  the  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage  the  equitable  jurisdiction 
is  invoked  and  is  not  affected  by  any  consideration  relating 
solely  to  the  merits  of  the  particular  controversy.  In  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph  we  cited  many  cases  asserting  that  where 
equity  assumes  jurisdiction,  although  wrongfully,  the  decree 
is  not  void.^  If  objection  is  properly  pressed  such  a  decree 
may  be  avoided  on  appeal,  but  it  is  not  vulnerable  upon  a  col- 
lateral attack.     This  rule  applies  even  where  the  bill  on  its 

'The  term  "equity  jurisdiction"  is  the  equity  jurisdiction,  but  it  is  a  ques- 

used   as  signifying  the   autliority   of  tion  of  equity  jurisprudence,  and  the 

courts  of  equity,  and  is  generally  em-  court  may  conclude  in  that  particular 

ployed  for  the  purpose  of  distinguish-  case  that  the  relief  shall  be  denied 

ing  the  general  authority  of  such  courts  because  the  facts  of  the  case  do  not 

from  that  conferred   upon   courts   of  come   within   the   limitations   of  the 

law.  principles  of  equity  which  control  the 

'^  Prof .  Tiedeman  says :  "If  a  party  extent  to  which  the  relief  asked  for 
applies  to  a  court  of  equity  for  a  spe-  shall  be  granted,  without,  at  the  same 
ciflc  performance  of  a  contract,  or  its  time,  reaching  the  conclusion  that  the 
cancellation  or  rescission,  the  fact  that  case  does  not  come  within  the  juris- 
the  party  asks  for  that  peculiar  kind  diction  of  the  court  of  equity."  Tiede- 
of  relief,  which  can  be  granted  by  a  man  Eq.  Jur.,  §  7.  See,  also,  1  Pom- 
court  of  equity  alone,  at  once  deter-  eroy  Eq.  Jur.,  §  129. 
mines  the  fact  that  the  case  falls  within  'See,  also,  Mellen  v.  Moline  Iron 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of  equity.  Works,  131  U.  S.  352,367;  Kilbourn 
But  whether  the  relief  shall  be  granted  v.  Sunderland,  130  U.  S.  505,  514 ;  Rey- 
in  that  particular  case  or  not  is  not  a  nes  v.  Dumont,  130  U.  S.  354. 
question  involved  in  the  inquiry  into 


^  241 


JUKISDICTKJN. 


269 


face  shows  that  there  is  an  adequate  remedy  at  law.^  Wliere 
the  jurisdiction  is  in  equity  a  decree  is  as  effective  as  is  a  judg- 
ment of  a  law  tribunal  in  a  matter  of  which  it  has  jurisdiction.'-^ 
In  those  States  in  which  the  statute  l)k'nds  the  hiw  and  cfjuity 
jurisdiction  and  provides  for  one  form  of  action  to  he  prose- 
cuted in  one  court  or  one  class  of  courts  the  question  of  whether 
the  cause  is  of  law  or  equity  cognizance  can  not,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  question  of  jurisdiction  or  no  jurisdiction,  be  of  much, 
if  any,  practical  importance.  We  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that 
vxvii  in  those  States  the  difference  between  matters  of  equitable 
and  matters  of  legal  cognizance  is  unimportant;  on  the  con- 
trary, we  believe  that  the  distinction  is  one  of  importance.  It 
is  not  important  because  it  materially  affects  the  question  of 
jurisdiction,  but  because  it  affects  the  remedy.-^  If  a  party 
mistakes  his  remedy,  as,  for  example,  sues  for  injuncti(^n  where 
his  whole  right  rests  upon  a  breach  of  contract  caused  by  a 
simple  failure  to  perform,  he  will  fail,  if  objection  is  oppor- 
tunely made.*     His  failure  to  recover  will  not,  however,  be  for 


'  Goodman  v.  Winter,  64  Ala.  410, 
432. 

'^Faught  V.  Faught,  98  In<l.  470;  Sib- 
bald's  Case,  12  Pet.  492 ;  White  v.  Bank 
of  United  States,  6  Ohio,  529 ;  IMagwire 
V.  Tyler,  40  Mo.  406;  McDonald  v. 
Mobile,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Ala.  358;  Denver 
1).  Lobenstein,  3  Colo.  216;  Baldwin 
V.  McCrea,  38  Ga.  650;  AVestern,  etc., 
Co.  V.Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,  10  W.Va.  250; 
Moody  V.  Harper,  38  Miss.  599 ;  Cowan 
V.  Wheeler,  25  Me.  267,  S.  C.  43  Am. 
Dec.  283;  McCampbell  v.  McCamp- 
bell,  5  Litt.  92,  S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  48. 

» In  Meyers  v.  Field,  37  Mo.  434,  441, 
it  was  said :  '  'The  distinction  between 
law  and  equity  has  not  been  abolished 
by  the  new  code  of  practice.  Equita- 
ble rights  are  still  to  be  determined 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  equity  ju- 
risprudence and  in  the  peculiar  modes 
■which  are  sometimes  required  in  such 
cases,  and  legal  rights  are  to  be  ascer- 
tained and  adjudged  upon  principles 


of  law  ;  and  the  rules  of  proceeding  at 
law  are  in  many  respects  very  differ- 
ent from  those  which  are  applied  to 
equity  cases.  Pleadings  should  be 
drawn  up  with  reference  to  these  dis- 
tinctions, though  in  the  form  prescrib- 
ed by  statute.  Where  the  petition  is 
framed  for  legal  redress,  the  plaintiff 
can  not  be  allowed  to  prove  his  etpii- 
table  rights,  though  the  facts  be  stated 
to  some  extent  in  his  petition.  If  he 
seeks  equitable  relief  the  facts  must 
be  stated  in  such  manner  as  to  show 
that  he  is  entitled  to  the  relief  prayed 
for  under  the  former  practice;  if  he 
claims  redress  at  law  the  essential  el- 
ements of  his  cause  of  action  must  be 
stated  with  reasonable  certainty  and 
clearness."  See  Neiser  i\  Thomas,  99 
Mo.  224. 

*Bass  V.  City  of  Fort  Wayne,  121 
Ind.  389;  Smith  v.  Goodknight,  121 
Ind.  312;  Miller  v.  City  of  Indianap- 
olis, 123  Ind.  196;    Kyle  v.  Frost,  29 


270  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  242 

the  reason  that  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction,  but  for  the  reason 
that  the  remedy  selected  is  not  the  appropriate  one.  In  some 
of  the  cases  there  is  a  confounding  of  a  mistake  of  the  remedy 
with  an  absence  of  jurisdiction.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
where  tlie  law  expressly  gives  to  a  court,  or  class  of  courts,  ju- 
risdiction of  equitable  cases  only,  it  can  not  take  jurisdiction 
of  a  case  belonging  to  a  class  of  an  entirely  and  radically 
different  character,  as,  for  example,  of  an  action  to  enforce  a 
penal  statute. 

§  242.  Law  Jurisdiction. — The  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of 
chancery  was  anciently  regarded  as  "the  extraordinary  juris- 
diction," and  that  of  the  courts  of  law  as  the  ordinary  juris- 
diction. It  is  still  true  that  the  courts  of  law  are  those  of  ordi- 
nary jurisdiction  and  that  where  a  right  is  created  and  no  pro- 
vision made  for  its  enforcement,  jurisdiction  will  fall  to  the 
courts  of  law  unless  the  case  is  one  legitimately  belonging  to 
the  courts  of  equity  jurisdiction.  But  the  jurisdiction  of  courts 
of  equity  is  now  so  well  defined  by  precedent  and  practice 
that  where  a  right  is  created  requiring  for  its  enforcement  the 
machinery  of  a  court  of  equity  it  will  be  held  that  the  case  is 
one  of  equity  cognizance,  but  where  there  is  no  equitable  fea- 
ture impressed  upon  the  case  by  the  statute  by  which  it  was 
created  it  will  fall  to  the  court  of  ordinary  jurisdiction.^ 
Where,  as  is  well  known,  a  new  right  is  created  and  a  specific 
remedy  provided  for  its  enforcement  that  remedy  must  be  pur- 
sued. 

§  243.  Jurisdiction  in  rem. — A  judicial  proceeding  against 
property  or  against  a  thing  is  a  proceeding  in  rem,  but  there 
are  proceedings  in  rem  which  are  not  in   the  true   sense  pro- 

Ind.  382;  Dixon  v.  Caldwell,  15  Ohio  S.  C.  C),  568,  577;  Clark  v.  Smith,  13 

St.  412,  415.  Pet.  195;  Holland  v.  Challen,  110  U. 

'  Fitch  r.  Creighton,  24  How.  (U.S.)  S.    15;     Reynolds   v.    Crawfordsville, 

159;  Cummings  V.  National  Bank,  101  etc.,  Bank,   112  U.  S.  405;    Orvis  v. 

TJ.  S.  153,  157 ;  Neves  v.  Scott,  13  How.  Powell,  98  U.  S.  176, 178 ;  Brine  v.  Ins. 

(U.  S.)  268,  271;    Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  Co.,  96  U.  S.  627;    Borland  v.  Haven, 

92  U.  S.  10;    Ellis  v.  Davis,  109  U.  S.  37  Fed.  R.  394. 
485 ;  Lorman  v.  Clarke,  2  McLean  (U. 


§  243  JURISDICTION.  271 

ceedings  against  the  res.^     It  is  true  that  siifli  procoodings  af- 


'  In  the  case  of  Cross  v.  Armstrong, 
44  Ohio  St.(U3,  the  court  thus  described 
a  proceeding  in  rem:  "In  rem  is  un- 
derstood to  be  a  technical  term  taken 
from  the  Roman  law,  and  there  used 
to  distinguish  an  action  against  the 
thing  from  one  against  the  person,  the 
terms  in  rem  and  in  personam  always 
being  the  opposite,  one  of  the  other ; 
an  act  in  personam  being  one  done  or 
directed  against  a  specific  person, 
while  an  act  in  rem  was  one  done  with 
reference  to  no  specific  person,  but 
against  or  with  reference  to  a  specific 
thing,  and  so  against  whom  it  might 
concern,  or  'all  the  world' ;  a  proceed- 
ing brought  to  determine  the  status  of 
the  thing  itself,  the  particular  thing, 
and  which  is  confined  to  the  subject- 
matter  in  specie,  is  in  rem,  the  judg- 
ment being  intended  to  determine  the 
state  or  condition,  and  ipso  facto,  to 
render  the  thing  what  the  judgment 
declares  it  to  be ;  while  a  proceeding 
which  seeks  the  recovery  of  a  personal 
judgment  is  in  personam.  In  the  for- 
mer, process  may  be  served  on  the 
thing  itself,  and  by  Such  service  and 
making  proclamation  the  court  is  au- 
thorized to  decide  upon  it  without 
other  notice  to  persons,  all  the  world 
being  parties ;  while  in  the  latter,  in 
order  to  give  the  court  power  to  ad- 
judge, there  must  be  service  upon  those 
whose  rights  are  sought  to  be  affected. 
As  regards  rights,  the  terms  signify 
the  antithesis  of  'available  against  a 
particular  person,*  and  'available 
against  the  world  at  large.'  Thus, 
pira  in  personam  are  rights  primarily 
available  against  specific  persons,  jura 
in  rem  rights  only  available  against 
the  world  at  large.  Beyond  this,  a 
judgment  or  decree  is  in  rem,  or  in  the 
nature  of  a  judgment  in  rem,  when  it 
binds  third  persons — such  as  tlie  sen- 


tence of  a  court  of  admiralty  on  a  ques- 
tion of  prize,  or  a  decree  of  other  courts 
upon  the  personal  status  or  relation  of 
the  party,  such  as  dissolution  of  mar- 
riage contract,  bastardy,  etc.,  a  decree 
in  probate  court  admitting  a  will  to 
probate  and  record,  granting  adminis- 
tration, etc.,  or  a  decree  of  a  court  of 
a  foreign  country  as  to  the  status  of  a 
person  domiciled  there."  Mr.  Free- 
man says:  "But  perhaps  the  most 
correct  as  well  as  the  most  concise 
definition  anywhere  given  of  a  judg- 
ment in  rem  is  that  to  be  found  in 
Smith's  Leading  Cases,  viz. :  that,  'it 
is  an  adjudication  upon  the  status  of 
some  particular  subject-matter,  by  a 
tribunal  having  competent  authority 
for  that  purpose,'  depending  for  its 
effect  on  this  principle,  that  it  is  'a 
solemn  declaration  proceeding  from 
an  accredited  quarter  concerning  the 
status  of  the  thing  adjudicated  upon, 
which  very  declaration  operates  accord- 
ingly upon  the  status  of  the  thing  adju- 
dicated upon,  and  ipso  facto  renders  it 
such  as  it  is  thereby  declared  to  be.'  " 
Freeman  on  Judgments,  §  606.  The 
author  refers  to  the  following  author- 
ities :  2  Smith's  Lead.Cas.  585,  586(6th 
Am.  ed.),  660;  State  v.  Central  Pac. 
R.  R.  Co.,  10  Nev.  47;  Lord  v.  Chad- 
bourne,  42  Me.  429,  S.  C.  66  Am.  Dec. 
290.  See,  also,  McLaughlin  v.  Mc- 
Crory,  55  Ark.  442,  S.  C.  29  Am.  St. 
56 ;  The  Palmyra,  12  Wheat.  1 ;  United 
States  V.  Brig  Malek  Adhel,  2  How. 
210;  Freeman  v.  Alderson,  119  U.  S. 
185;  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714; 
Grignon's  Lessee  v.  Astor,  2  How.  (U. 
S.)  319;  Brigham  r.  Fayerweather, 
140  Mass.  413,  414;  Arndt  r.  Griggs, 
134  U.  S.  316;  Jones  r.  Fletcher,  42 
Ark.  422.  See,  generally,  Carpenter 
V.  Strange,  141 1".  S.  87 ;  Davis  v.  Ilead- 
ly,  22  X.  J.  Eq.  115 ;  Cooley  v.  Scarlett, 


272  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  243 

feet  the  status  of  persons  as  well  as  of  things,  but  it  will  not  be 
safe  to  say,  as  is  sometimes  done,  that  proceedings  in  rem  are 
proceedings  affecting  the  status  of  persons  and  things,  since 
such  a  definition  would  be  entirely  too  comprehensive  inas- 
much as  it  would  include  all  classes  of  suits  and  actions,  for 
the  judgment  or  decree  of  a  court  necessarily  affects  the  status  of 
persons.  Thus,  for  example,  a  judgment  in  an  ordinary  action 
of  assumpsit  adjudges  that  the  status  of  the  one  party  is  that 
of  creditor  and  of  the  other  that  of  debtor,  but  no  one  would 
think  of  calling  such  an  action  a  proceeding  in  rem.  A  promi- 
nent characteristic  of  a  proceeding  in  rem  is  that  it  is  effective 
as  against  all  persons,  or  as  was  said  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  an  early  case,  it  is  effective  against  all  the 
world.  This  is  true  of  all  classes  of  proceedings .m  rem,  as  well 
of  those  called  quasi  proceedings  in  rem  as  of  those  which  are 
strictly  in  rem.  A  proceeding  in  attachment  is  generally  re- 
garded as  a  quasi  proceeding  in  rem,  but  it  is  quite  difficult 
under  the  present  condition  of  the  authorities,  to  affirm  that 
this  statutory  proceeding  is  in  rem,  for  in  many  respects  it  is 
a  proceeding  in  personam.  It  certainly  can  not  be  regarded  as 
strictly  in  rem,  for  the  rights  of  the  person  are  often  involved, 
and  it  is,  at  most,  an  ancillary  proceeding,  but  withal,  a  pro- 
ceeding in  which  the  adjudication  settles  the  status  of  the  prop- 
erty seized  under  the  writ.  Where  the  debtor  is  a  non-resi- 
dent of  the  State  it  is  the  seizure  of  the  property  that  gives 
jurisdiction  and  constructive  notice  is  sufficient,  but  such 
notice  will  not  authorize  a  personal  judgment.^  A  proceeding 
in  attachment  differs  essentially  from  a  strict  proceeding  in 
rem  inasmuch  as  in  such  a  proceeding  there  is  no  personal  de- 
fendant, whereas  in  an  attachment  proceeding  if  there  is  actual 
service  of  notice  or  an  appearance  a  personal  judgment  may  be 
rendered  although  it  may  be  far  in  excess  of  the  value  of  the 

38  111.  316,  S.  C.  87  Am.  Dec.  298;  Robinson  v.  National  Bank  of  New> 

Burnley  v.  Stevenson,  24  Ohio  St.  474,  berne,  81  N.  Y.  38.5 ;  People  v.  Baker, 

S.  C.  15  Am.  R.  621 ;  Quarls  v.  Abbett,  76  N.  Y.  78;  Casey  v.  Adams,  102  U. 

102  Ind.  233.  S.66 ;  Kilbourn  v.Woodworth,  5  Johns. 

'  Cooper  V.  Reynolds,  10  Wall.  308 ;  37 ;  Gates  v.  Bennett,  33  Ark.  475. 


«  243 


JURISDICTION. 


273 


property  seized.'  Where  there  is  actual  service  or  an  appear- 
ance a  proceeding  in  attachment  would  seem  to  be  a  double 
one,  that  is,  in  personam  as  well  as  in  rem,  but  where  there  is 
neither  an  appearance  nor  actual  service  it  seems  that  tlie  pro- 
ceeding is  in  rem  and  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  dependent 
upon  the  property  seized.  In  so  far  as  concerns  the  attach- 
ment proceedings  the  seizure  of  the  property  is  the  essential 
requisite  to  jurisdiction,  but  it  is  held  by  some  of  the  courts 
that  seizure  is  not  of  itself  sufficient  to  confer  jurisdiction; 
this  doctrine  is,  however,  not  accepted  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. ^  We  can  see  no  reason  for  doubting  the 
soundness  of  the  conclusion  reached  by  that  great  court,  for 
the  seizure  of  the  property  gives  authority  to  adjudicate  as  to 
that  property  and  there  is,  therefore,  jurisdicton  of  the  par- 
ticular subject  as  well  as  of  the  general  class  of  cases,  so  that 
there  is  not  such  an  absence  of  jurisdiction  as  makes  the  pro- 


'  Under  the  decision  of  the  court  in 
Bardwell  v.  Collins,  44  Minn.  97,  S. 
C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  547,  granting  the 
soundness  of  that  decision,  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  proceedings  would  be  valid 
where  there  is  no  service  of  notice  up- 
on a  resident  of  the  State,  even  though 
a  statute  assumed  to  dispense  with 
notice.  It  seems  to  follow,  as  a  ne- 
cessity, from  the  reasoning  in  that 
case,  that  wherever  the  defendant  is 
a  resident  there  must  be  actual  legal 
notice  although  property  may  be  the 
subject  of  the  suit  or  action. 

'  In  Cooper  v.  Reynolds,  10  Wall. 
308,  319,  the  court  said :  "Now,  in  this 
class  of  cases  on  what  does  the  juris- 
diction of  the  court  depend?  It  seems 
to  us  that  the  seizure  of  the  property, 
or  that  which  in  this  case  is  the  same 
in  effect,  the  levy  of  the  writ  of  attach- 
ment on  it, is  the  one  essential  requisite 
to  jurisdiction,  as  it  unquestionably 
is  in  proceedings  purely  in  rem.  With- 
out this  the  court  can  proceed  no  fur- 
18 


ther ;  with  it  the  court  can  proceed  to 
subject  that  property  to  the  demand 
of  the  plaintiff.  If  the  writ  of  attach- 
ment is  the  lawful  writ  of  the  court, 
issued  in  proper  form  under  the  seal 
of  the  court,  and  if  it  is  by  the  proper 
oflScer  levied  upon  property  liable  to 
the  attachment,  when  such  writ  is  re- 
turned into  court,  the  power  of  the 
court  over  the  res  is  established."  In 
reference  to  the  publication  of  notice 
the  court  said:  "So,  also,  of  the  pub- 
lication of  notice.  It  is  the  duty  of 
the  court  to  order  such  publication, 
and  to  see  that  it  has  been  properly 
made,  and  undoubtedly,  if  there  has 
been  no  such  publication,  a  court  of 
errors  might  reverse  the  judgment. 
But  when  the  writ  has  been  issued, 
the  property  seized,  and  that  property 
been  condemned  and  sold,  we  can  not 
hold  that  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction 
for  want  of  a  suflicient  publication  of 
notice." 


274 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  243 


ceedings  utterly  void.  Another  class  of  cases,  and  a  very  large 
one,  in  which  jurisdiction  is  quasi  in  rem,  is  that  usually  de- 
nominated "probate  matters."  In  probate  matters  the  estate 
is  regarded  as  the  res,  and  the  proceedings  are,  therefore,  in 
the  nature  of  proceedings  in  rem}  For  the  reason  that  they 
partake  of  the  nature  of  proceedings  in  rem  they  are  usually 
held  to  be  effective  against  all  persons.  Where  a  sale  is  or- 
dered of  real  property  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  in 
the  exercise  of  its  probate  authority  the  proceedings  are  re- 
garded by  some  of  the  courts  as  in  rem,'^  but  by  other  courts  a 
different  view  is  taken. ^  If  the  proceeding  is  in  rem  then 
under  the  doctrine  of  the  court  in  the  case  from  which  we  have 
quoted,*  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  a  sale  is  not  void  although 
notice  may  not  have  been  given,  but  upon  this  question  the 
authorities  are  in  sharp  conflict.^     There  is  another  class  of 


'  Gaines  v.  Firentes,  92  U.  S.  10 ;  En- 
nis  V.  Smith,  14  How.  400;  Archer  v. 
Mosse,  2  Vern.  8;  HolHday  v.  Ward, 
19Pa.  St.  485;  Schultz  v.  Schultz,  10 
Gratt.  358,  S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  335 ;  Nor- 
vell  V.  Lessueur,  33  Gratt.  222 ;  Steele 
V.  Renn,  50  Texas,  467,  S.  C.  32  Am. 
Rep.  605;  Moore  v.  Tanner,  5  T.  B. 
Monroe,  42,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  35;  Ce- 
cil V.  Cecil,  19  Md.  72,  S.  C.  81  Am. 
Dec.  626 ;  Patton  v.  Allison,  7  Humph. 
320;  Brown  v.  Brown,  86  Tenn.  277; 
Miller  ?>.  Foster,  76  Texas,  479;  Van- 
derpoell  v.  Van  Valkenburg,  6  N.  Y. 
190 ;  Cotton  v.  Ross,  2  Paige,  396,  S. 
C.  22  Am.  Dec.  648 ;  State  v.  McGlynn, 
20  Cal.  233,  S.  C.  81  Am.  Dec.  118; 
Whicker  v.  Hume,  7  H.  L.  Cases,  124. 

2  Smith  V.  Smith,  13  Gray,  209 ;  Hood 
V.  Hood,  110  Mass.  463;  Perry  v.  Med- 
dowcroft,  10  Beav.  122;  Bunting's 
Case,  4  Coke,  29;  Kenn's  Case,  7 
Coke,  138;  Smith's  Leading  Cases(6th 
Am.  ed.),  670. 

^  See  note  5. 

♦Cooper  V.  Reynolds,  10  Wall.  308. 

*  In  the  case  of  Good  v.  Norley,  28 


Iowa,  188,  Judge  Dillon  gave  the  gen- 
eral subject  a  very  able  and  careful 
consideration.  He  indicated  that  his 
opinion  was  that  lack  of  notice  did 
not  render  the  proceedings  void.  In 
the  subsequent  cases  of  Washburn  v. 
Carmichael,  32  Iowa,  487 ;  Boyles  v. 
Boyles,  37  Iowa,  592,  and  Shawhan  v. 
Loffer,  24  Iowa,  217,  the  court  repudi- 
ated the  views  of  Judge  Dillon.  That 
able  judge,  in  support  of  his  position, 
cited  Grignon's  Lessee  v.  Astor,  2  How. 
(U.  S.)  319;  McPherson  v.  Cunliff,  11 
S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  422 ;  Saltonstall  v.  Riley, 
28  Ala.  164;  AVilkinson  v.  Leland,  2 
Pet.  627;  Sheldon  v.  Newton,  3  Ohio 
St.  494 ;  Benson  v.  Cilley,  8  Ohio  St. 
604;  Howard  v.  Moore,  2  Mich.  226; 
Coon  V.  Fry,  6  Mich.  506;  Doe?;.  Har- 
vey, 5  Blackf.  487 ;  Thompson  v.  Doe, 
8  Blackf  .336 ;  Norton  v.  Norton,5  Cush. 
524.  As  opposing  his  view  he  cited : 
Babbitt  v.  Doe,  4  Ind.  355 ;  Doe  v.  An- 
derson, 5  Ind.  33;  Doe  v.  Bowen,  8 
Ind.  197;  Gibbs  v.  Shaw,  17  Wis.  197; 
French  v.  Hoyt,  6  N.  H.  370. 


§  243  JURISDICTION.  275 

cases,  and  its  members  are  very  numerous,  which  are  usually 
considered  us  rywa.s/  proceedings  in  rem.  We  refer  to  the  class 
of  cases  wherein  the  relief  sought  is  the  enforcement  of  a  lien 
against  property.  Such  proceedings  are  said  to  be  against  a 
thing  indebted.  A  proceeding  against  a  thing  indebted  gen- 
erally rests  upon  a  lien,  and,  for  our  present  purpose,  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  say  that  a  lien  is  the  right  in  a  thing  correspondent 
to  the  amount  of  the  debt  due  from  the  owner  of  the  thing  to 
the  creditor.  To  the  extent  of  the  lien  the  creditor  has  a  sort 
of  limited  estate  in  the  property  so  that  the  right  asserted  in 
seeking  an  enforcement  of  the  lien  is  against  the  property  or 
thing.  A  proceeding  to  enforce  a  lien,  while  it  is  in  the  nature 
of  a  proceeding/m  rem,  is  not  strictly  such  a  proceeding,  for  in 
such  a  case  there  must  be  some  notice  to  the  person.  The 
States  have  very  comprehensive  powers  respecting  the  enforce- 
ment of  liens  upon  property  within  their  borders,^  but  it  is  the 
better  opinion  that  such  a  lien  can  not  be  enforced  without 
actual  or  constructive  notice  to  the  property  owners.  The  fore- 
closure of  liens  is  the  exercise  of  equity  jurisdiction  inasmuch 
as  equity  acts  specifically  and  not  by  way  of  compensation,  so 

•  In  the  case  of  Arndt  v.  Griggs,  134  v.  "Williamson,  24  How.  427 ;  Christian 
U.  S.  316,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  557,  the  Union  v.  Yount,  101  U.  S.  352;  Lath- 
court  exhaustively  reviewed  the  au-  rop  v.  Bank,  8  Dana,  114;  Cloyd  v. 
thorities  upon  the  general  question,  Trotter,  118111.  391 ;  Adams  p.  Cowles, 
and,  among  other  things,  said:  "Tliese  95  Mo.  501;  Wunstel  r.  Landn,-,  39 
various  decisions  of  this  court  estab-  La.  Ann.  312;  Essigr.  Lower,  120  Ind. 
lish  that,  in  its  judgment,  a  State  has  239,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  1090;  Dillon  v. 
power  by  statute  to  provide  for  the  Heller,  39  Kan.  599;  Beebe  v.  Doster, 
adjudication  of  titles  to  real  estate  36  Kan.  666,  675,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  Rep.  150; 
within  its  limits  as  against  non-resi-  Gillespie  r. Thomas, 23  Kan.  138;  Walk- 
dents  who  are  brought  into  court  only  enhorst  r.  Lewis,  24  Kan.  420;  Rowe  r. 
by  publication  ;  and  that  is  all  that  is  Palmer,29Kan.337;  Venable  v.  Dutch, 
necessary  to  sustain  the  validity  of  37  Kan.  515,  519,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  Rep. 
the  decree  in  question  in  this  case."  520;  Boswell's  Lessee  r.  Otis,  9  How. 
The  court,  as  sustaining  its  view,  cited  336 ;  Parker  v.  Overman,  18  How.  137 ; 
the  following  authorities :  Holland  v.  Clark  r.  Smith,  13  Pet.  195 ;  Pennover 
Challen,  110  U.  S.  15;  Hart  v.  San-  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714;  Huling  v.  Rkil- 
som,  110  U.  S.  151 ;  United  States  v.  way  Co.,  130  U.  S.  559,  S.  C.  9  Sup. 
Fox,  94  U.  S.  315,  320;  McCormick  v.  Ct.  Rep.  603;  Mellen  r.  Iron  Works, 
Sullivant,  10  Wheat.  192 ;  Beauregard  131  U.  S.  352,  S.  C.  0  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  781. 
V.  New  Orleans,  18  How.  497;  Suydam 


276  THE    WORK    OUT   OF    COURT.  §  243 

that  it  would  seem  that  where  jurisdiction  is  asserted  against 
property  indebted  and  there  is  no  actual  or  manual  seizure, 
there  must  be  some  notice,  either  actual  or  constructive.  The 
well  known  maxim  that  equity  acts  upon  the  person  requires  that 
notice  should  be  given  since  without  notice  there  is  no  personal 
defendant  in  court.  This  rule  can  not,  however,  apply  where 
the  jurisdiction  is  purely  in  rem,  for,  as  we  shall  presently  see, 
such  proceedings  are  directly  against  the  thing  and  hence  it  is 
not  necessary  that  there  should  be  any  personal  defendant 
present.  It  has  been  held  by  a  very  able  court  that  a  statute 
assuming  to  confer  jurisdiction  to  decree  the  foreclosure  of 
mortgages  in  suits  against  residents  of  the  State  upon  notice 
by  publication  is  unconstitutional.^  There  is,  as  we  have  al- 
ready indicated,  conflict  upon  the  question  whether  seizure  is 
of  itself  sufficient  notice;  some  of  the  cases  declare  that  an  ef- 
fective seizure  is  notice,^  and  this  it  seems  to  us  is  the  sound 
doctrine  where  there  is  an  actual  and  complete  seizure  of  the 
thing,  for  such  an  act  is  notice  as  full  and  effective  as  can  well 
be  given,  but  where  there  is  no  actual  seizure  it  seems  to  us 
that  the  rule  must  be  otherwise.  We  are  not  now  referring  to 
cases  where  the  statute  authorizing  proceedings  m  rem  or  quasi 

^  Bardwell  v.  Collins,  44  Minn.  97,  monwealth,  1  Duv.  210;  Henderson 
S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  R.  547.  In  the  course  v.  Staniford,  105  Mass.  504;  Morrison 
of  the  opinion  in  that  case  the  court  v.  Underwood,  5  Cush.  52;  Hurlbut 
said:  "It  is,  in  our  judgment,  beyond  v.  Thomas,  55  Conn.  181,  S.  C.  3  Am. 
the  power  of  the  legislature  to  disre-  St.  R.  43;  Happy  v.  Mosher,  48  N.  Y. 
gard  so  fundamental  and  long-estab-  313;  Rockwell  y.  Nearing,  35  N.Y.  302; 
lished  a  principle  of  our  jurispru-  Beard  w.  Beard,  21  Ind.  321;  Orcutt  ?;. 
dence.  Service  by  publication,  under  Ranney,  10  Cush.  183. 
such  circumstances,  is  not  due  process  *  New  Orleans  v.  Hemphill,  35  Miss, 
of  law,  and  therefore  any  statute  as-  17;  Stewart  v.  Board,  etc.,  25  Miss, 
suming  to  authorize  it  is  unconstitu-  479 ;  Hollingsworth  v.  Barbour,  4  Pet. 
tional.  It  would  be  of  little  use  to  466;  Kealing  t).  Spink,  3  Ohio  St.  105; 
cite  authorities  upon  a  subject  which  Thompson  v.  Steamboat  Morton,  2 
has  been  so  much  and  so  often  dis-  Ohio  St.  26;  Bradstreet  v.  The  Nep- 
cussed  in  its  many  phases,  as  each  tune  Co.,  3  Sumn.  600;  Schooner 
case  must  be  determined  upon  its  own  Bolina,  etc.,  1  Gal.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  75; 
facts,  and  hence  the  decided  cases  The  Mary,  9  Cranch,  126;  Nations  ■«. 
would  ordinarily  be  in  point  only  by  Johnson,  24  How.  195;  Gray  v.  Kim- 
way  of  analogy."   See  Burnamt'.  Corn-  ball,  42  Me.  299,  307. 


§  243  JURISDICTION.  277 

proceedings  in  rem  expressly  requires  notice  and  makes  it  ju- 
risdictional, but  to  cases  where  the  question  is  not  affected  or 
controlled  by  statute,  for  we  think  that  there  is  an  essential 
difference  between  cases  where  there  is  a  statute  expressly 
making  notice  by  publication  or  by  personal  service  essential 
to  jurisdiction  and  cases  where  there  is  no  statute  bearing  upon 
the  subject.  Notice  by  publication  is  not  sufficient  to  confer 
jurisdiction  of  the  person,  for,  theoretically  at  least,  there  are 
no  personal  defendants  to  proceedings  strictly  in  rem.^  "Where 
the  proceedings  are  against  the  property,  that  is,  are  proceed- 
ings in  rem  in  the  narrow  and  strict  sense  of  the  term,  posses- 
sion actual  or  constructive  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  juris- 
diction.^ If  jurisdiction  is  once  fully  acquired  a  removal  would 
not,  it  is  held,  divert  it,  although  the  removal  was  made  under 
color  of  authority,^  but  a  seizure  voluntarily  abandoned  by  the 
government  or  by  a  party  having  authority  to  abandon  puts  an 
end  to  the  authority  over  the  property  seized.'*  If  a  substitute 
for  the  property  is  provided  jurisdiction  remains,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, where  a  bond  is  executed  which  secures  the  release  of 
the  property  from  the  actual  or  constructive  possession  of  the 
court. ^  It  is  manifest  that  if  a  party  could  oust  jurisdiction 
by  executing  a  bond  great  injustice  would  result,  especially  in 
attachment  proceedings,  or  other  quasi  proceedings  m  rem. 
The  doctrine  of  the  responsibility  of  things  is  founded  in  great 
part  on  a  pure  legal  fiction,^  and  proceeding  on  this  fiction 
there  are  said  to  be  three  classes  of  things:  1.  Things  guilty. 
2.  Things  hostile.     3.    Things  indebted.     It  is  obvious  that 

1  Belcher  v.  Chamber,  53  Cal.  635 ;  lery,  96  U.  S.  395 ;  Three  Tons  of  Coal, 

Billings  V.  Kothe,  49  Iowa,  34 ;  Walker  6  Biss.  379. 

V.  Day,  8  Baxter,  77 ;  Mercantile  Trust  '  The  Rio  Grande,  10  Wall.  178. 

Co.  i\  Railroad,  16  Blatchf.  324.  "The  Josepha,  etc.,  10  AVheat.  312. 

» United  States  r.  Eighty-four  Boxes  ^  The  Blanche  Page,  16  Blatchf.  1; 

of  Sugar,  7  Peters,  453;  Two  Hundred  The  C.  T.  Ackerman,  14  Blatchf.  360; 

Chests  of  Tea,  9  Wheat.  430;    Mcll-  Cargo  of  Schooner  North  Carolina,  15 

vaine  v.  Coxe,  4  Cranch,  209;  Markle  Peters,  40. 

V.  Akron,  14  Ohio,  509,  591 ;  The  Pal-  « United  States  v.  La  Vengeance,  3 

myra,    12    Wheat.  1 ;    The  Whiskey  Dall.  297;    Schooner  Little  Charles,  1 

Cases,  99  U.  S.  594;    Dobbins'  Distil-  Brock,   354,   374;     The    Palmyra,    12 

Wheat.  1. 


278  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  244 

the  foundation  for  the  two  classes  first  mentioned  is  purely  fic- 
titious without  the  semblance  of  fact  in  its  composition,  and 
the  third  class  has  little  more  of  fact  in  its  foundation  although 
there  is  some  reason  for  asserting  that  a  thing  may  be  in  fact 
indebted,  as,  for  instance,  where  a  watch  or  a  wagon  is  in- 
creased in  value  by  repairs  or  improvements  placed  upon  it. 
There  is,  however,  little  practical  use  for  resorting  to  fiction 
for  the  doctrine  may  well  be  placed  upon  a  solid  basis  of  fact. 
"Where  there  is  money  due  as  compensation  for  a  loss  actually 
suffered  or  where  there  is  a  right  to  damages  or  a  necessity  for 
inflicting  a  punishment  by  way  of  penalty  and  the  property  is 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
may  not,  without  inventing  any  fiction,  be  seized  and  sold. 
It  is  well  settled  that  where  the  property  is  within  the  terri- 
torial jurisdiction  of  the  court  proceedings  against  it  in  a  prop- 
er mode  constitute  due  process  of  law.^  Proceedings  in  rem 
are  civil  and  not  criminal,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  ground 
upon  which  the  seizure  is  made.^ 

§  244.  Jurisdiction  in  personam. — A  fundamental  requisite 
to  jurisdiction  of  the  person  is  that  of  notice.  No  judgment, 
it  is  safe  to  say,  can  be  valid  as  against  a  person  unless  he  has 
notice  according  to  the  law  of  the  land.^  We  do  not  mean  to 
be  understood  as  saying  that  no  judgment  affecting  the  rights 
of  persons  in  some  degree  may  not  be  valid  without  notice,  for 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  case  wherein  the  rights 
of  persons  are  not  in  some  measure  affected  by  a  judgment  or 
decree.  Even  in  judgments  purely  m  rem  the  rights  of  persons 
are  affected  and  in  most  cases  very  materially.  Thus,  in  a 
proceeding  to  condemn  property  seized  for  a  violation  of  law 
and  under  the  legal  fiction  that  the  property  is  the  offender, 
the  rights  of  the  owners,  or  of  those  having  an  interest  in  it, 

'  The  Confiscation   Cases,  20  Wall.  *  Barnacoat  v.  Gunpowder,  1   Met, 

92 ;   La  Vengeance,  3  Dall.  297,  301 ;  230 ;    State  v.  Barrels  of  Liquor,   47 

Whelan  v.  United  States,  7  Cranch,  N.  H.  369;     Anonymous,  1   Gal.  22; 

112;    The    Betsey    and    Charlotte,   4  United  States  v.  Gundy,  3  Cranch,  337. 

Cranch,    446;     Fisher    v.    McGin,    1  ^  See  Process. 
Gray,  1. 


§  244  JURISDICTION.  279 

are  involved.  But  such  actions,  as  we  have  seen,  are  not  in 
personam.^  In  suits  which  are  of  a  mixed  nature,  such,  for 
instance,  as  a  suit  to  foreclose  a  mortgage  on  real  estate,  the 
rights  of  the  mortgagor  and  of  lienholders  are  very  materially 
affected,  inasmuch  as  the  decree  of  foreclosure  sweeps  away  the 
equity  of  redemption.  In  such  suits,  however,  substituted  or 
constructive  notice  is  sufficient  to  confer  jurisdiction  if  the 
parties  are  not  residents  of  the  State  in  whieli  the  land  is  situ- 
ated. The  land  is  really  the  principal  thing,  and  as  the  prin- 
cipal thing  or  element  determines  the  jurisdiction,  so  that  a 
suit  to  foreclose  tlie  lien  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  purely  per- 
sonal action  or  suit.  If,  however,  a  judgment  against  the  per- 
son is  also  sought,  then  as  to  that  element  the  suit  is  personal. 
We  think,  therefore,  that  it  may  be  justly  assumed  that  there 
is  a  class  of  actions  which  may  be  appropriately  denominated 
''mixed,"  inasmuch  as  they  blend  the  elements  of  actions  in 
personam  and  actions  in  rem,  and  while  partaking  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  two  classes,  can  not  be  justly  assigned  to  either  of 
them.  In  these  mixed  actions  or  suits  there  must,  as  we  be- 
lieve, be  some  notice,  although  it  need  not  necessarily  and  in- 
variably be  actual  notice. ^     If,  however,  a  personal  judgment 

*  Personal  actions  are  usually  said  to  prehensive  sense,  which  are  personal 
be  those  brought  for  the  recovery  of  although  they  neither  concern  per- 
speciflc  personal  property,  for  injuries  sonal  property  nor  award  damages, 
to  person  or  personal  property.  Ac-  Thus,  a  decree  of  a  court  of  equity  di- 
tions  for  the  recovery  of  real  estate  recting  specific  performance  of  a  con- 
are  not  personal  actions  in  the  strict  tract  concerning  land  directly  affects 
sense  of  the  term  although  they  may  the  person,  as  does  a  decree  for  the 
sometimes  partake  of  the  nature  of  cancellation  of  a  deed,  or  a  decree  di- 
such  actions  as  where  damages  are  re-  recting  the  rescission  of  a  contract, 
coverable.  In  personal  actions  the  Where  the  person  is  acted  upon  by  a 
judgment  is  for  the  recovery  of  dam-  judgment  or  decree  the  proceeding  is 
ages  or  of  chattels.  But  the  term  in  persmiain,  although  real  estate  may 
"personal  judgment,"  is  usually  con-  be  involved. 

fined  to  cases  where  the  action  is  a        ^  AVe  think  that  in  the  case  of  Dorr 

personal  one  in  the  strict  sense.     "We,  v.  Rohr,  82  Va.  359,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R. 

however,  think  it  must  have  a  wider  106,  the  court  states  the  doctrine  too 

signification  where,  as  here,  the  gen-  broadly  and  that  the  error  is  attribut- 

eral  subject  of  jurisdiction  is  under  able  to  the  fact  that  it  lost  sight  of  the 

discussion.     There  are  judgments,  us-  distinction  between  actions  purely  in 

ing  the  term  "judgments"  in  a  com-  ?-em  and  (/?<«*/ proceedings  i«  rem.     As 


280 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  244 


is  sought  there  must  be  notice  other  than  by  publication.^  An 
action  purely  in  personam  is  an  adversary  proceeding  requiring 
the  presence  of  the  defendant,  or,  such  notice  to  him  as  the 
law  requires,  or  else  a  waiver  of  notice.  Where  the  defendant 
has  been  given  notice,  or  has  waived  it,  and  the  judgment  or 
decree  sought  is  purely  personal,  jurisdiction  to  award  the 
judgment  or  decree  exists,  although  it  may  affect  property  in 
another  State.  A  purely  personal  action  may  be  maintained, 
no  matter  where  property  ultimately  or  indirectly  affected  by  it 
may  be  situated.  This  doctrine  was  long  since  declared  by 
the  court  of  chancery.^  The  doctrine  that  equity  acts  in  per- 
sonam and  not  in  rem  impresses  upon  equity  jurisdiction  a  pe- 
culiar characteristic  and  that  is  this:  Where  the  person  is 
subject  to  its  authority  a  decree  may  be  entered  in  a  proceed- 
ing of  a  purely  equitable  nature,  although  the  property  involved 


we  have  shown  seizure  is  notice  where 
the  proceeding  is  purely  iii  rem,  that 
is  against  a  hostile  or  guilty  thing.  In 
the  cases  of  Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  93 
U.  S.  274,  there  was  no  complete  seiz- 
ure of  the  res,  and  in  McVeigh  v. 
United  States,  11  Wall.  259,  the  ques- 
tion was  as  to  the  right  of  one  asserted 
to  be  an  alien  enemy  to  appear  and 
defend.  In  Dean  v.  Nelson,  10  Wall. 
158,  the  proceeding  was  a  mixed  one, 
for  it  was  a  proceeding  to  establish 
the  liability  of  a  thing  indebted,  and 
this  is  true  of  Lasere  v.  Rochereau,  17 
Wail.  437,  and  of  Earle  v.  McVeigh, 
91  U.  S.  503.  The  cases  of  Galpin  v. 
Page,  18  Wall.  350,  and  Ex  parte 
Lange,  18  Wall.  163,  do  little  more 
than  assert  the  general  principle  re- 
garding notice. 

1  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714 ;  St. 
Clair  V.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  350;  Smith  v. 
Eaton,  36  Me.  298,  S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec. 
746;  Mattingly  V.  Corbit,  7  B.  Monr. 
376;  Austin  v.  Bodley,  4  T.  B.  Monr. 
434;  Collinson  v.  Teal,  4  Sawy.  241; 
Parrott  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Fed. 


R.  391;  Clayton  v.  Clayton,  4  Colo. 
410;  Dearing  v.  Bank  of  Charleston,  5 
Ga.  497,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  300;  King 
V.Vance,  46  Ind.  246;  Lutz  v.  Kelly,  47 
Iowa,  307;  Eaton  v.  Badger,  33  N.  H. 
228;  Bartlett  v.  Spicer,  75  N.  Y.  528; 
Miller  v.  Miller,  1  Bailey,  242;  Bos- 
well's  Lessee  v.  Otis,  9  How.  (U.  S.) 
336;  Picquet  v.  Swan,  5  Mason,  35. 

*  Penn  v.  Lord  Baltimore,  1  Vesey 
Sen.  444,  2  Leading  Cases  in  Equity, 
1806.  The  rule  declared  in  the  case 
cited  has  been  enforced  in  a  long  line 
of  decisions  and  has  been  applied  in 
a  great  diversity  of  cases.  Brown  v. 
Desmond,  100  Mass.  267;  Davis  v. 
Parker,  14  Allen,  94 ;  Pingree  v.  Cof- 
fin, 12  Gray,  288;  Gardner  v.  Ogden, 
22  N.  Y.  332,  339 ;  Bailey  v.  Ryder,  10 
N.  Y.  363;  Newton  v.  Bronson,  13  N. 
Y.  587;  Sutphen  v.  Fowler,  9  Paige, 
280;  Hawley  v.  James,  7  Paige,  213; 
Mead  v.  Merritt,  2  Paige,  402;  Wat- 
kins  V.  Holman,  16  Pet.  25;  Caldwell 
V.  Carrington,  9  Pet.  86;  Moore  v, 
Jaeger,  2  McArthur,  465. 


§  244  JURISDICTION.  281 

may  be  in  a  foreign  country.  Here,  again,  we  encounter  the 
class  of  cases  we  denominated  mixed,  for  while  it  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  courts  of  equity  to  decree  the  foreclosure  of  liens 
upon  real  estate,  yet,  as  we  suppose,  a  court  in  New  York  could 
not  decree  the  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage  executed  upon  land 
situated  in  Connecticut  or  any  other  State,'  but  the  courts  of 
the  State  in  which  the  land  lies  could  upon  notice,  either  actual 
or  constructive,  decree  a  foreclosure,  no  matter  where  the  par- 
ties resided.  As  we  have  elsewhere  said,  a  case  such  as  that 
just  instanced  partakes  of  the  elements  of  personal  and  real 
actions  so  largely  that  the  proceedings  in  it  can  not,  with  strict 
accuracy,  be  denominated  actions  in  personam  nor  can  they 
be  denominated  proceedings  in  rem.  In  theory  the  decrees  of 
equity  act  only  upon  the  conscience  of  the  party,  but  practic- 
allv  they  do  act  upon  the  property.  Thus,  in  the  great  class 
of  cases  where  decrees  enforcing  the  specific  performance  of 
contracts  concerning  land  are  granted,  the  decree  necessarily 
and  vitally  affects  the  question  of  title,  and  yet  it  is  firmly  set- 
tled that  a  suit  to  enforce  such  a  contract  is  a  proceeding  in 
personam  and  not  in  rem,  and  may  be  maintained  where  there 
is  jurisdiction  of  the  person,  although  the  land  involved  in  the 
controversy  may  be  situated  in  another  State. ^  Injunctions 
may  be  issued,  where  the  defendant  is  within  the  jurisdiction 

^Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Postal        *  Watkins  v.  Holman,   16  Pet.  25; 

Tel.  Co.,  55  Conn.  334,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  Mitchell  v.  Bunch,  2  Paige,  606 ;  Cleve- 

R.  53.     See  Wimer  v.  Wimer,  82  Va.  landu.  Burrill,2o  Barb.  532;  Neuborn 

890,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  126;  Blanchard  v.  v.  Bronson,  13  N.  Y.  587;    Massie  v. 

Burrell,  13  :\rass.  4,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  Watts,   6    Cranch,    148;     Shattuck  v. 

106;    Dickinson  v.  Hoomes,  8  Gratt.  Cassidy,  3  Ed.  Ch.  R.  152;  Monnett  t'. 

353;  Bargerv.  Buckland,28Gratt.850;  Turpie,   132  Ind.  484,  486;    Bethell  u. 

Poindexter  v.   Burwell,  82  Va.   507;  Bethell,  92  Ind.  318,322;    Morgan  r. 

Piedmont  Coal  Co.  v.  Green,  3  W.  Va.  Bell   (Wash.),  S.  C.  16  Lawy.   Rep. 

54,  S.  C.  98  Am,  Dec.  799;    Cooley  v.  Anno.  614;    Blanchard  v.  Russell,  13 

Scarlett,  38  111.  316,  S.  C.  87  Am.  Dec.  Mass.  1,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  106;    Davis 

298;   City  Insurance  Co.  v.  Commer-  v.  Headly,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  115;    Hayden 

cial   Bank,   68   111.   348;    Johnson   v.  v.  Yale  (La.),  12  So.  R.  633:  :srcQuorry 

Kimbro,3IIead.551,S.  C.  75  Am.Dec.  v.   Gilliland,    89   Ky.   434;     Ward    v. 

781;    Molyneux   i'.    Seymour,  30  Ga.  Arredondo,  1  Hopk.Ch.213;  Sutphen 

440,  S.  C.  76  Am.  Dec.  662;  Sturgis  v.  v.  Fowler,  9  Paige,  280. 
Fay,  16  Ind.  429,  S.  C.  79  Am.  Dec.  440. 


282 


THK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§244 


of  the  court,  prohibiting  the  performance  of  acts  in  another 
State. ^  In  all  such  cases  as  those  in  which  specific  perform- 
ance of  contracts  concerning  lands  is  enforced,  the  underly- 
ing theory  is  that  the  decree  operates  upon  the  conscience  of 
the  party  and  not  upon  the  property,  and  this  is  essential  to  a 
successful  maintenance  of  the  doctrine,  for  otherwise  it  would 
come  into  conflict  with  the  settled  rule  that  the  courts  of  one 
State  can  not  determine  the  title  to  property  in  another  State. 
To  avoid  the  conflict  between  the  two  great  rules  under  men- 
tion the  courts  hold  that  the  decree  directing  performance 
operates  upon  the  person  and  that  it  is  the  conveyance  executed 
pursuant  to  it  that  operates  upon  the  title. ^      It  is  not  easy  to 


"  Cole  V.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  107, 
S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  269.  In  the  case 
cited  the  subject  is  ably  considered 
and  the  authorities  exhaustively  re- 
viewed. The  opinion  demonstrates 
the  soundness  of  the  general  doctrine 
that  equity  will  prevent  parties  within 
one  State  from  taking  proceedings  in 
another  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the 
exemption  laws  of  the  State  where  the 
parties  reside.  The  court  quoted  with 
approval  Lord  Chancellor  Brougham's 
statement  of  the  rule  in  the  case  of 
LordPortarlington«.  Soulby,  3  Mylne 
&  K.  104,  where  the  chancellor  de- 
clared "Nothing  can  be  more  un- 
founded than  the  doubts  of  the  juris- 
diction. That  is  grounded  like  all 
other  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  not 
upon  any  pretension  to  the  exercise 
of  judicial  and  administrative  rights 
abroad  but  on  the  circumstance  of  the 
person  of  the  party  on  whom  this  or- 
der is  made  being  within  the  power  of 
the  court."  Tlie  court  also  quotes  ap- 
provingly the  statement  of  Mr.  Justice 
Swayne  in  Phelps  v.  McDonald,  99  U. 
S.  298,  .308,  that  "Where  the  necessary 
parties  are  before  a  court  of  equity,  it 
is  immaterial  that  the  res  of  the  con- 
troversy, whether  it  be  real  or  personal 


property,  is  beyond  the  territorial  ju- 
risdiction of  the  tribunal.  It  has  the 
power  to  compel  the  defendant  to  do 
all  things  necessary,  according  to  the 
lex  loci  rei  sitce,  which  he  could  do 
voluntarily,  to  give  full  effect  to  the  de- 
cree against  him.  Without  regard  to 
the  situation  of  the  subject-matter, 
such  courts  consider  the  equities  be- 
tween the  parties  and  decree  in  per- 
sonam according  to  those  equities,  and 
enforce  obedience  to  their  decrees  by 
process  in  personam."  See,  generally, 
Snook  V.  Snetzer,  25  Ohio  St.  516 ;  Rail- 
road Co.  V.  Thompson,  31  Kan.  180, 
S.  C.  1  Pac.  R.  622 ;  Keyser  v.  Rice,  47 
Md.  203;  Zimmerman  v.  Franke,  34 
Kan.  650,  S.  C.  9  Pac.  R.  747;  Wilson 
V.  Joseph,  107  Ind.  490,  S.  C.  8  N.  E. 
R.  616;  Chaffee  v.  Quidnick  Co.,  13  R, 
1. 442,  449 ;  Manufacturing  Co.  v.Wors- 
ter,  23  N.  H.  462 ;  Pickett  v.  Ferguson, 
45  Ark.  177 ;  Dinsmore  v.  Neresheimer, 
32  Hun,  204;  Erie  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ramsey, 
45  N.  Y.  637. 

^  This  question  received  considera- 
tion in  Lindley  v.  O'Reilly,  50  N.  J.  L. 
636,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  802.  In  the 
opinion  given  in  that  case  it  was  said: 
"p]ver  since  Penn  v.  Lord  Baltimore, 
1  Ves.  Sr.  444,  it  has  been  established 


§  244 


JURISDICTION. 


283 


draw  with  exact  accuracy  the  line  between  a  personal  judgment 
in  the  strict  sense,  and  judgments  of  a  different  nature,  so  that 


law  that  in  cases  of  contract,  trust,  or 
fraud,  the  equity  courts  of  one  State  or 
country  iiaving  jurisdiction  of  the  par- 
ties are  competent  to  entertain  a  suit 
for  speciiic  performance,  or  to  estab- 
lisli  a  trust,  or  for  a  conveyance,  al- 
tliough  the  contract,  trust,  or  fraudu- 
lent title  pertains  to  lands  in  another 
State  or  country.  The  principle  upon 
which  this  jurisdiction  rests  is,  that 
chancery,  acting  in  personam,  and 
not  in  rem,  holds  the  conscience  of  the 
parties  bound  without  regard  to  the 
situs  of  the  i)roperty.  It  is  a  jurisdic- 
tion which  arises  when  a  special  equity 
can  be  shown  which  forms  a  ground 
for  compelling  a  party  to  convey  or 
release,  or  for  restraining  him  from 
asserting  a  title  or  right  in  lands  so 
situated,  and  is  strictly  limited  to  those 
cases  in  which  the  relief  decreed  can 
be  obtained  through  the  party's  per- 
sonal obedience.  If  it  went  beyond 
that,  the  assumption  of  jurisdiction 
would  not  only  be  presumptuous,  but 
ineffectual.  Westlake  on  Interna- 
tional Law,  57,  58.  The  decree  in  a 
suit  of  this  aspect  imposes  a  mere  per- 
sonal obligation,  enforceable  by  in- 
junction, attachment,  or  like  process, 
against  the  person,  and  can  not  oper- 
ate ex  propria  vigore  upon  lands  in  an- 
other jurisdiction  to  create,  transfer, 
or  vest  a  title.  The  cases  on  this  sub- 
ject are  numerous.  They  are  collected 
in  the  note  toPennr.Lord  Baltimore, 
2  Lead.  Cas.  P:q.  1806  (923)  ;  Ewingr. 
Orr  Ewing,  L.  R.,  9  App.  C.  34, 
Brett's  Lead.  Cas.  Eq.  234;  Norris  v. 
(Jhambres,  29  Beav.  240;  Massie  v. 
Watts,  6  Cranch,  148;  Wood  v.  War- 
ner, 15  N.  J.  Eq.  81 ;  Vaughan  v.  Bar- 
clay, 6  Whart.  392.  In  Davis  r.  Head- 
ley,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  115,  the  complainant 
obtained  a  decree  in  the  circuit  court 


of  Kentucky  against  Ileadley  that  a 
conveyance  of  lands  in  New  Jersey, 
made  by  the  complainant,  should  be 
rescinded  and  set  aside,  the  possession 
restored,  and  the  defendant  enjoined 
from  setting  up  the  conveyance.  He 
tlien  filed  a  bill  in  the  court  of  chan- 
cery of  this  State  to  enforce  the  <le- 
cree.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  parties 
and  of  the  subject-matter  of  that  suit 
was  undisputed.  The  bill  to  enforce 
the  decree  was,  nevertheless,  dis- 
missed. Chancellor  Zabriskie,  in  dis- 
missing the  bill  declared  that  it  was  a 
well  settled  principle  of  law  in  the  de- 
cisions of  England  and  of  this  country, 
and  acquiesced  in  by  the  jurists  of  all 
civilized  nations,  that  immovable 
property  is  exclusively  subject  to  the 
laws  and  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of 
the  State  or  nation  in  which  it  is  lo- 
cated, and  that  no  other  laws  or  courts 
could  affect  it.  He  addeil,  'I  find  no 
case  in  which  a  statute,  judgment,  or 
proceeding  in  one  country  has  been 
held  to  affect  such  property  in  another 
country,  or  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  sovereign  or  court  making  the 
statute  or  decree.'  After  referring  to 
Penn  v.  Lord  Baltimore,  siipra,  and 
the  cases  in  which  decrees  for  specific 
performance  of  contracts  relating  to 
lands  without  their  jurisdiction  were 
made,  the  learned  chancellor  said: 
'But  in  these  cases  it  is  admitte<l,  as 
it  was  by  Lord  Hardwicke,  that  these 
decrees  could  not  affect  the  land,  but 
could  only  be  enforced  where  the 
court  had  jurisdiction  of  the  per.son  of 
the  defendant,  and  thus  compel  him 
to  execute  the  conveyance.  In  such 
cases,  it  is  the  conveyance,  and  not 
the  decree,  that  has  the  effect.'  A 
similar  precedent  in  the  federal  courts 
enforced  the  same  view.     Watts  v. 


284 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§244 


perhaps  the  best  that  can  be  done  is  to  refer  to  some  of  the  ad- 
judged cases.  It  has  been  held  that  a  decree  cancelling  a  ne- 
gotiable instrument  is  personal,  and  for  its  effectiveness  re- 
quires jurisdiction  of  the  person,^  and  so  of  a  policy  of  insur- 
ance."^ Going  somewhat  farther  in  the  same  general  direction, 
are  those  cases  which  hold  that  an  order  discharging  a  debtor 
under  a  State  insolvent  statute  is  personal,  and  is  not  suflB.- 
ciently  supported  as  against  a  creditor  who  has  only  construct- 
ive or  substituted  notice. '"^     Where  a  stock  subscription  is  in 


Waddle,  1  McLean,  200,  S.  C.  6  Pet. 
389.  Lands  situate  in  Ohio  were  cov- 
ered by  two  patents,  one  issued  to 
Powell  and  the  other  to  Watts.  To 
remove  this  cloud  upon  his  title,  AYatts 
commenced  a  suit  against  Powell's 
heirs  in  the  circuit  court  for  the  dis- 
trict of  Kentucky  and  obtained  a  de- 
cree sustaining  his  title.  The  court 
had  jurisdiction  of  the  parties.  By 
the  decree,  the  defendants  were  re- 
quired to  convey  the  premises  to  the 
complainant.  A  statute  of  Kentucky 
authorized  the  court,  in  case  the  de- 
fendant in  such  a  suit  failed  to  convey, 
to  appoint  a  commissioner  to  make 
conveyance.  By  the  decree,  a  com- 
missioner was  appointed,  and  no  con- 
veyance having  been  made  by  the 
parties,  a  deed  was  executed  by  the 
commissioner.  A  suit  afterwards 
brought  in  the  federal  circuit  court  of 
Ohio  brought  in  question  the  effect  of 
the  decree  of  the  Kentucky  court,  and 
of  the  commissioner's  deed  in  execu- 
tion of  it,  upon  the  title  to  the  lands. 
The  court  held  that  neither  the  decree 
nor  the  commissioner's  deed  vested 
the  legal  title  in  the  complainant.  In 
the  opinion  in  the  Supreme  Court,  Mr. 
Justice  McLean  said :  'The  most  de- 
cisive objection  to  the  decree  against 
Powell's  heirs  is,  that  it  does  not  vest 
the  legal  title  in  Watts.  A  decree  can 
not  operate  beyond  the  State  in  which 
the  jurisdiction  is  exercised.   It  is  not 


in  the  power  of  one  State  to  prescribe 
the  mode  by  which  real  property  shall 
be  conveyed  in  another.  This  princi- 
ple is  too  clear  to  admit  of  doubt.' 
These  cases  rest  upon  the  rule  which 
is  firmly  established,  that  the  courts 
of  one  State  or  country  are  without 
jurisdiction  over  title  to  lands  in  an- 
other State  or  country.  The  clause  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  which  re- 
quires full  faith  and  credit  to  be  given 
in  each  State  to  the  records  and  ju- 
dicial proceedings  of  every  other  State 
is  subordinate  to  this  rule,  and  applies 
to  the  records  and  proceedings  of  the 
courts  only  so  far  as  they  have  juris- 
diction. Public  Works  v.  Columbia 
College,  17  Wall.  521 ;  Watts  v.  Wad- 
dle, 6  Pet.  389 ;  Brine  v.  Insurance  Co., 
96  U.  S.  627,  635;  Davis  v.  Headley, 
22  N.  J.  Eq.  115,  121 ;  Nelson  v.  Pot- 
ter, 50  N.  J.  L.  324." 

1  Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  529,  S.  C. 
2  Sup.  Ct.  R.  704;  Empire  v.  Darling- 
ton, 101  U.  S.  529;  Brooklyn  v.  Insur- 
ance Co.,  99  U.  S.  362,  370. 

2  Insurance  Co.  v.  Bangs,  103  U.  S. 
435. 

3  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  223 ;  Haw- 
ly  V.  Hunt,  27  Iowa,  303,  S.  C.  1  Am. 
R.  273;  Chase  v.  Flagg,  48  Me.  182; 
Felch  V.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  9;  Guernsey 
V.  Wood,  130  Mass.  503;  Gardner  v. 
Oliver  Lee  Bank,  11  Barb.  558;  In  re 
Waite,  99  N.  Y.  433 ;  Kelley  v.  Drury, 
9  Allen,  27;  Pratt  v.  Chase,  44  N.  Y. 


^  245  JURISDICTION.  285 

part  unpaid  and  the  subscriber  is  notified  to  pay  the  balance 
due  a  judgment  for  that  balance  is  a  personal  judgment.'  A 
wide  stretch  of  the  doctrine  requiring  actual  notice  was  made 
in  a  case  wherein  it  was  held  that  a  provi.sion  in  a  decree  of 
divorce  rendered  upon  constructive  notice,  prohibiting  the  de- 
fendant from  marrying  was  void.^  It  was  held  in  another  case 
that,  where  stock  held  in  the  name  of  a  South  Carolina  bank 
in  a  Georgia  bank,  was  sold  upon  execution,  a  suit  against 
the  South  Carolina  bank  to  enjoin  it  from  asserting  title  to  the 
stock,  was  in  personam  and  could  not  be  maintained  in  Georgia 
upon  constructive  notice.^  Where  a  judgment  is  for  damages, 
and  it  is  enforceable  by  an  ordinary  writ  of  execution,  the  pro- 
ceeding is  in  personam.  The  general  and  far-reaching  rule  is 
that  where  a  decree  or  judgment  creates  a  personal  duty  or  ob- 
ligation, or  declares  a  personal  charge,  the  proceedings  are  in- 
effective unless  there  is  actual  notice,  that  is,  notice  by  sum- 
mons or  subpoena.  It  is  understood,  of  course,  that  notice  may 
always  be  waived  by  the  person  entitled  to  it  under  the  law. 

§  245.    Status  of  persons — Authority  to  determine — There 
is  a  species  of  jurisdiction  to  which  it  is  difficult  to  assign  a 

597;  Soule  v.  Chase,   39  N.  Y.  342;  ^  Wilson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  108 

Easterly  v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  279,  S.  Mo.  588,  S.  C.  18  So.  W.  R.  286;  Wil- 

C.  95  Am.  Dec.  237.     See,  generally,  son  v.  Seligman,  3(3  Fed.  R.  154.     See 

Ogden  V.  Saunders,  12   Wheat.   213;  same  case  on  appeal,  144  U.  S.  41. 

Norton  v.  Cook,  9  Conn.  314,  S.  C.  23  ^^Van  Stoach  v.  Griffin,  71  Pa.  St. 

Am.  Dec.  342;  Poe  v.  Duck,  5  Md.  1 ;  240.     If  the  case  cited  is  to  be  under- 

Donnelly    v.   Corbett,   7    N.   Y.   500;  stood  as  holding  that  the  part  of  the 

Whitney  v.  Whiting,   35  N.  II.  457;  decree  dissolving  the  marital  relation 

Oilman'  v.   Lockwood,   4  AVall.    409.  was  valid,  but  the  prohibitory  clause 

But  see,  May  v.  Breed,  7  Cush.  15,  S.  void,  its  soundness  may  well  be  doubt- 

C.  54  Am.  Dec.  700.     If  the  creditor  ed   inasmuch   as    jurisdiction   of  the 

appears  and  accepts  a  dividend  we  principal  matter  was  sufficient  to  sus- 

suppose  he  would  be  bound.     Phelps  tain  the  incidental  order. 

V.  Borland,  103  N.Y.  40G,  S.  C.  57  Am.  '  Dearing  r.  Bank  of  Charleston,  5 

R.  755;  Clay  r.  Smith,  3  Pet.  411.   The  Ga.   497,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  300.     It 

court  having  acquired  complete  juris-  seems  to  us  that  as  the  stock  was  ac- 

diction  of  the  estate  could,  as  to  the  tually  seized  there  was  jurisdiction  of 

property  in  custody  of  its  ministers  or  the  res,  and  that  constructive  notice 

officers,  make  an  order  binding  upon  authorized  an  injunction.     This  would 

all  creditors  having  constructive  no-  seem  to  follow  from  the  doctrine  re- 

tice  to  the  extent  of  the  property.  specting  proceedings  in  attachment. 


286  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  245 

place  under  the  accepted  classifications  of  the  general  subject 
of  jurisdiction,  and  that  species  is,  jurisdiction  to  determine  or 
declare  the  status  of  persons  resident  or  domiciled  within  a 
State.  This  jurisdiction  is  generally  assigned  a  place  as  a  sub- 
division of  jurisdiction  in  rem,  and  while  the  status  may,  in  a 
certain  sense,  be  regarded  as  the  res,  yet  it  is  not  easy  to  give 
a  satisfactory  reason  for  regarding  jurisdiction  to  declare  the 
status  of  persons  as  a  division  of  the  general  subject  of  juris- 
diction in  rem.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  jurisdiction  exercised 
in  declaring  the  status  of  persons  is  a  division  of  itself,  for  there 
is  great  difficulty  in  establishing  the  affinity  of  such  jurisdic- 
tion to  that  which  is  invoked  in  rem  against  things  hostile, 
things  guilty  or  things  indebted.  Adjudging  that  a  marriage 
is  dissolved  is  a  very  different  thing  from  adjudging  that  fifty 
barrels  of  whisky  shall  be  sold  because  of  the  violation  of  a 
revenue  law.  The  difference  is  inherent  and  radical  in  almost 
every  aspect  in  which  the  question  can  be  viewed.  Between  a 
case  declaring  the  position  or  .relationship  of  an  adopted  child 
and  a  case  subjecting  property  to  sale  because  it  is  a  guilty 
thing,  there  is,  as  every  one  can  see,  a  wide  and  intrinsic  dif- 
ference. Treating  jurisdiction  of  the  status  of  persons  as  a 
member  of  the  class,  jurisdiction  in  rem,  serves  to  breed  confu- 
sion, since  it  confounds  persons  and  things  in  a  way  that  pro- 
duces obscurity.  There  is,  it  is  true,  this  element  common  to 
both  classes,  namely,  that  a  judgment  or  decree  is  operative 
against  all  persons  whatsoever.  Thus,  if  a  decree  of  divorce 
is  validly  pronounced  it  settles  the  status  of  the  parties  as  to 
all  the  world,  and  so  also  does  a  decree  declaring  a  child  duly 
adopted.  But  this  common  element  does  not,  by  any  means, 
justify  the  conclusion  that  the  two  species  are  not  essentially 
different,  for  all  cognate  species  of  a  great  general  class  must 
have  some  elements  in  common  else  they  could  not  be  consid- 
ered members  of  one  class.  The  marital  relation  is  a  status 
since  marriage  is  something  more  than  a  mere  civil  contract, 
so  that  a  decree  or  judgment  dissolving  this  relation  is  a  decree 


§245 


JURISDICTION. 


287 


or  judgment  affecting  the  .status  of  the  parties.'  As  the  decree 
of  divorce  operates  to  tix  the  status  of  the  parties,  it  is  obvious 
that  at  least  one  of  the  parties  must  be  a  resident  of  the  State 
in  which  the  divorce  is  granted,  for  it  is  not  within  the  power 
of  any  governmental  department  of  one  State  to  establish  by  a 
statute,  decree  or  judgment  the  status  of  the  residents  of  another 
State. ^  It  is  upon  this  principle  that  it  is  held  by  many  of  the 
courts  that  a  decree  rendered  by  default  upon  constructive 
service  where  neither  of  the  parties  are  residents  of  the  State  is 
void  because  there  is  no  jurisdiction,^  but  upon  this  general 
subject  there  is   much  diversity  of  opinion.^     It  seems  to  us 

'  Watkins  v.  Watkins,  125  Ind.  163 ;     Midi.  117,  S.  C.  50  Am.  R.  247 ;  Gettys 
Hood  V.  State,  56  Ind.  263,  S.  C.  26    v.  Gettys,  3  Lea,  260,  S.  C.  31  Am.  R. 

637 ;  Neff  v.  Beauchamp,  74  Iowa,  92 ; 
Leith  V.  Leith,  39  N.  H.  20;  Holmes 
V.  Holmes,  4  Lans.  388;  Colvin  v. 
Reed,  55  Pa.  St.  375;  Doughty  v. 
Doughty,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  315,  321 ;  Flower 
V.  Flower,  42  N.  J.  F:q.  152,  S.  C.  7 
Atl.  R.  669;  Irby  v.  Wilson,  1  Dev.  & 
Bat.  Eq.  568;  Zerfass'  Appeal,  135  Pa. 
St.  522,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  1056;  Cook  v. 
Cook,  56  Wis.  195,  S.  C.  43  Am.  R.  706, 
14  N.  W.  R.  33;  Murray  v.  Murray,  6 
Ore.  17,  24;  Colliss  v.  Hector,  L.  R. 
19  Eq.  334,  340. 

*  Smith  V.  Smith,  43  La.  Ann.  1140, 
S.  C.  10  So.  R.  248;  Glaude  r.  Peat, 


Am.  R.  21 ;  Tolen  v.  Tolen,  2  Blackf . 
407;  Hoffman  v.  Hoffman,  46  N.  Y. 
30;  Kerrr.  Kerr,  41  N.Y.  272;  Dutch- 
er  t'.  Dutcher,  39  Wis.  651 ;  Davis  v. 
Commonwealth,  13  Bush.  318;  State 
V.  Armington,  25  Minn.  29;  Reed  v. 
Reed,  52  Mich.  117;  Strait  v.  Strait, 
3  McArthur,  415;  Sewall  v.  Sewall, 
122  Mass.  156;  Van  Fossenv.  State,  37 
Ohio  St.  317 ;  Whitcomb  u.Whitcomb, 
46  Iowa,  437;  Litowich  v.  Litowich, 
19  Kan.  451. 

"Strader  v.  Graham,  10  How.    (U. 
S.)  82. 

» Peoples.  Dawell,  25  Mich.  247,  S. 
C.  12  Am.  R.  260;  Hood  v.  State,  56  43  La.  Ann.  161,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  884; 
Ind.  263,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  21 ;  Watkins  Van  Orsdal  r.Van  Orsdal,  67  Iowa,  35, 
V.  Watkins,  125  Ind.  163;  Williams  v.  S.  C.  24  N.  W.  R.  579;  Gould  r.  Crow, 
Williams,  130  N.    Y.    193;  O'Dea  v.    57  Mo.  200,  204;  Cox  v.  Cox,  19  Ohio 


O'Dea,  101  N.  Y.  23;  Jones  v.  Jones, 
108  N.  Y.  415;  De  Meli  v.  De  Meli, 
120  N.  Y.  485,  495;  People  v.  Baker, 
76  N.  Y.  78,  84;  Cross  v.  Cross,  108  X. 
Y.  628,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  333;  State  v. 
Fleak,  54  Iowa,  429;  Burlen  v.  Shan- 
non, 99  Mass.  200,  S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec. 
733;  Chaney  v.  Bryan,  15  Lea,  589; 
State  V.    Armington,    25    Minn.    29; 


St.  502;  Holmes  V.  Holmes,  57  Barb. 
305,307;  Hull  v.  Hull,  2  Strob.  Eq. 
174;  Manley  r.  Manley,  4Chandl.  96; 
Arrington  v.  Arrington,  102  N.  C. 
491,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  200;  Hubbell  v. 
Ilubbell,  3  AVis.  662,  S.  C.  62  Am.  Dec. 
702;  Mansfield  )'.  Mclntyre,  10  Ohio, 
28;  Ditson  v.  Ditson,  4  R.  1.87;  Har- 
rison V.  Harrison,  19  Ala.  499 ;  Hard- 


Smith  v.  Smith,  19  Neb.  706;  Van  Fos-  ing  r.  Alden,  9  Greenl.  146,  S.  C.  23 

sen  V.  State,  37  Ohio,  317,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Am.  Dec.  549 ;  Estate  of  Newman,  75 

R.  507 ;  Gregory  r.  Gregory,  76  Me.  535,  Cal.  213,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  146. 
S.  C.  57  Am.  R.  792 ;  Reed  v.  Reed,  52 


288 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§245 


that  where  one  of  the  parties  is  a  boiia  fide  resident  of  the  State 
the  courts  of  that  State  have  jurisdiction  to  determine  upon 
constructive  notice,  the  status  of  the  parties.^  The  cases  make 
a  distinction,  and  with  reason,  between  decrees  affecting  only 
the  status  and  those  which  assume  to  determine,  upon  mere 
constructive  notice,  rights  affecting  property  in  another  State, 
or  which  create  a  personal  charge  against  one  of  the  parties 
personally.  There  is,  it  is  evident,  a  difference  of  an  essential 
character  between  the  status  of  persons  and  rights  which  are 
purely  of  a  personal  or  property  nature,  so  that  there  is  reason 
for  holding  that  a  judgment  for  alimony  can  not  be  rendered 
upon  constructive  notice.^     Such  a  judgment,  if  valid,  creates 


^  This  view  is  asserted  by  Judge 
Cooley,  and  it  has  been  substantially 
approved  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  Cheely  v.  Clayton, 
110  U.  S.  701,  S.  C.  4  Sup.  Ct.  R.  328. 
In  the  case  cited  it  was  said:  "The 
courts  of  the  State  of  the  domicile  of 
the  parties  doubtless  have  jurisdiction 
to  decree  a  divorce,  in  accordance  with 
its  laws,  for  any  cause  allowed  by  those 
laws,  without  regard  to  the  place  of 
the  marriage,  or  to  that  of  the  com- 
mission of  the  offense  for  which  the 
divorce  is  granted ;  and  a  divorce  so 
obtained  is  valid  everywhere.  Story 
Confl.  Laws,  §  230a;  Cheever  v.  Wil- 
son, 9  Wall.  108 ;  Harvey  v.  Farnie,  8 
App.  Cas.  43.  If  a  wife  is  living  apart 
from  her  husband  without  sufficient 
cause  his  domicile  is  in  law  her  domi- 
cile ;  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  proof 
of  fraud  or  misconduct  on  his  part,  a 
divorce  obtained  by  him  in  the  State 
of  his  domicile,  after  reasonable  no- 
tice to  her,  either  by  personal  service 
or  by  publication,  in  accordance  with 
its  laws,  is  valid,  although  she  never 
in  fact  resided  in  that  State.  Burlen 
V.  Shannon,  115  Mass.  438;  Hunt  v. 
Hunt,  72  N.  Y.  217.  But  in  order  to 
make  the  divorce  valid,  either  in  the 
State  in  which  it  is  granted  or  in  an- 


other State,  there  must,  unless  the  de- 
fendant appeared  in  the  suit,  have 
been  such  notice  to  her  as  the  law  of 
the  first  State  requires."  Much  to  the 
same  effect  is  the  decision  in  Maynard 
V.  Hill,  125  U.  S.  190,  S.  C.  8  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  723,  where  the  court  considered  the 
status  of  marriage  and  said,  among 
other  things,  that,  "One  of  the  parties, 
the  husband,  M^as  a  resident  within 
the  territory,  and,  as  he  acted  soon 
afterwards  upon  the  dissolution  and 
married  again,  we  may  conclude  that 
the  act  was  passed  upon  his  petition. 
If  the  assembly  possessed  the  power 
to  grant  a  divorce  in  any  case,  its  ju- 
risdiction to  legislate  upon  his  status, 
he  being  a  resident  of  the  territory,  is 
undoubted,  unless  the  marriage  was  a 
contract  within  the  prohibition  of  the 
federal  constitution  against  its  impair- 
ment by  legislation,  or  within  the 
terms  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  the 
privileges  of  which  were  secured  to 
the  inhabitants  of  Oregon  by  their 
organic  act, — questions  which  we  will 
presently  consider."  See, also, Cooley's 
Const.  Lim.,400;  Wharton  Conflictof 
Laws,  §  224-229 ;  Cheever  ?;. Wilson,  9 
Wall.  108. 

^  Prosser  v.  Warner,  47  Vt.  667,  S.  C. 
19  Am.  R.  132 ;  Lytle  v.  Lytle,  48  Ind. 


§245 


JURISDICTION. 


289 


an  obligation  that  is  essentially  a  personal  charge.  The  doc- 
trine stated  is  rested  by  some  of  the  courts  upon  the  principle 
that  the  jurisdiction  extends  only  to  the  stakis  and  that  the 
status  does  not  draw  to  it  any  incidents  of  such  a  character  as 
will  confer  extra  territorial  jurisdiction  to  impose  a  personal 
charge  or  determine  property  rights.  It  is  probably  true  that 
when  there  is  property  within  the  State  where  the  suit  is  pros- 
ecuted, that  is  seized  under  attachment,  or  other  process  au- 
thorizing a  seizure,  there  may  be  a  valid  adjudication  as  to  that 
property,  but  not  as  to  property  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State. 
An  inquest  of  lunacy  determines  the  status  ol  the  person,  audit 
is  held  that  a  failure  to  give  notice  to  the  person  whose  insanity 
is  adjudged  does  not  render  the  proceeding  void,^  but  there  are 
cases  declaring  a  different  doctrine.^  Courts  of  equity,  although 
they  act  only  in  personam,  take  charge  of  the  estates  of  infants 
and  of  the  estates  of  persons  non  compos  mentis,  but  this  they 
do  through  ministers  or  agents  as  guardians,  trustees  and  the 
like.  In  such  cases  the  proceeding  can  not  be  said  to  be  in 
rem,  for  equity  does  not  act  upon  property.      Indeed,  in  many 


200;  Gould  I'.  Crow,  57  Mo.  200;  Jack- 
son V.  Jackson,  1  Johns.  424;  Crane  w. 
Meginnis,  1  Gill.  &  J.  463,  S.  C.  19 
Am.  Dec.  237 ;  Townsend  v.  Griffin,  4 
Harr.  (Del.)  440;  Kline  v.  Kline,  57 
Iowa,  386;  Beard  v.  Beard,  21  Ind. 
321;  Sanford  v.  Sanford,  5  Day,  353; 
Turner  v.  Turner,  44  Ala.  437.  See, 
generally,  Webster  v.  Reid,  11  IIow. 
(U.  S.)  437 ;  Boswell  v.  Otis,  9  Hoav. 
(U.  S.)  336;  Montgomery  y.  Samory, 
99  U.  S.482;  Middleworth  v.  McDow- 
ell, 49  Ind.  386 ;  Phelps  V.  Baker,  60 
Barb.  107,  110 ;  City  of  Philadelphia 
V.  Wetherby,  15  Phila.  403;  Colvin  v. 
Reed,  55  Pa.  St.  375,  380 ;  Reel  v.  El- 
der, 62  Pa.  St.  308 ;  Van  Cleaf  v.  Burns, 
133  N.  Y.  540,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  661; 
Roth  V.  Roth,  104  111.  35,  43. 

'  Dodge  V.  Cole,  97  111.  338,  S.  C.  37 
Am.  R.  Ill;  Dutcher  v.  Hill,  29  Mo. 

19 


271,  273;  Betheav.  McLennon,  1  Ired. 
L.  523,  527;  McKim  v.  Doane,  137 
Mass.  195;  Medlock  v.  Cogburn,  1 
Rich.  Eq.  477. 

=  Wait  V.  Maxwell,  5  Pick.  217,  S.  C. 
16  Am.  Dec.  391 ;  Chase  v.  Hathway, 
14  Mass.  222;  Conkey  r.  Kingman,  24 
Pick.  115 ;  Smith  v.  Burlingame,  4  Ma- 
son, 121 ;  McCurry  v.  Hooper,  12  Ala. 
823,  S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  280;  Eslava  v. 
Lepretre,  21  Ala.  504,  S.  C.  56  Am. 
Dec.  266;  Lance  v.  McCoy,  34  W.  Va. 
416,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  728.  See,  Coolidge 
V.  Allen,  82  Me.  23,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R. 
89;  Commonwealth  v.  Kirkbride,  7 
Phila.  8;  Hutts  v.  Hutts,  62  Ind.  214; 
Tracy's  Case,  1  Paige,  580;  Vanauk- 
en's  Case,  2  Stock.  (N.J.)  186;  White- 
nack's  Case,  2  Green  Ch.  252;  Nyce  v. 
Hamilton,  90  Ind.  417;  Rogers  v. 
Walker,  6  Pa.  St.  371. 


290 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§246 


instances  the  personal  welfare  of  the  infant  will  invoke  the 
exercise  of  the  equitable  jurisdiction.^  It  is,  therefore,  the 
status  of  the  person  that  is  in  all  such  cases  the  essential  ele- 
ment of  jurisdiction. 

§  246.  Status  of  children — Authority  to  adjudge. — In  as- 
suming, as  courts  of  equity  have  done  for  almost  time  out  of 
mind,  jurisdiction  over  infant  children, ^  the  status  of  the  chil- 
dren is  necessarily  involved  and  adjudicated.  The  status  of  an 
adopted  child  is  fixed  by  the  proceedings  of  the  court  which 


^  Cowles  V.  Cowles,  3  Gil.  (111.)  435; 
Maguirew.  Maguire,7  Dana,181 ;  John- 
stone V.  Beattie,  10  CI.  &  Fin.  42.  See, 
generally,  Hutson  tJ.Townsend,6  Eich. 
Eq.  249;  Striplin  v.  Ware,  36  Ala.  87; 
Goodman  v.  Winter,  64  Ala.  410; 
Garner  ^?.  Gordon,  41  Ind.  92;  Wood 
>v.  Wood,  5  Paige,  596;  State  v.  Baird, 
18  N.  J.  Eq.  194;  Matter  of  Hubbard, 
82  N.  Y.  90. 

*  An  able  vindication  of  the  juris- 
diction of  equity  is  that  of  Lord  Eldon 
in  Wellesley  v.  The  Duke  of  Beaufort, 
2  Euss.  1,  and  in  De  Manneville  v. 
De  Manneville,  10  Vesey,  Jr.  52.  See, 
also,  Wellesley  v.  Wellesley,  1  Dow. 
N.  S.  152;  Aymar  v.  Eoff,  3  John.  Ch. 
49 ;  State  v.  Stigall,  2  Zab.  (N.  J.)  286, 
289 ;  State  v.  Baird,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  194 ; 
Downin  v.  Sprecher,  35  Md.  474 ;  Arm- 
strong V.  Stone,  9  Gratt.  102,  106; 
Williamson  v.  Berry,  8  How.  (U.  S.) 
495 ;  Gardenhire  v.  Hinds,  1  Head.402 ; 
Wood  V.  Wood,  5  Paige,  596 ;  Wilcox 
V.  Wilcox,  14  N.  Y.  575 ;  Succession  of 
Landry,  11  La.  Ann.  85.  In  the  case 
of  State  V.  Saunders  (N.  H.),  18  Lawy. 
Eep.  Ann.  646,  the  court  quoted  from 
one  of  the  earlier  cases  the  following 
statement :  "Equity,  as  a  great  branch 
of  the  law  of  their  native  country,  was 
brought  over  by  the  colonists  and  has 
always  existed  as  a  part  of  the  com- 
mon  law,  in   its   broadest  sense,    in 


New  Hampshire."  The  court  cited 
the  cases  of  Wells  v.  Peirce,  27  N.  H. 
503;  Copp  V.  Hanniker,  55  N.  H.  179, 
210,  S.  C.  20  Am.  E.  194 ;  Penhallow 
V.  Kimball,  61  N.  H.  596;  Carroll  u. 
McCullough,  63  N.  H.  95;  Eckstein  v. 
Downing,  64  N.  H.  248.  The  state- 
ment quoted  unquestionably  expresses 
the  true  doctrine,  for  our  American 
courts  have  general  equity  powers, 
and  these  powers  exist  unless  ex- 
pressly taken  away  by  statute.  Nealis 
V.  Dicks,  72  Ind.  374 ;  Eatliff  v.  Stretch, 
130  Ind.  282,  284.  The  general  doc- 
trine upon  the  subject  of  the  power  of 
courts  of  equity  to  fix  the  status  of 
children  is  thus  stated  in  a  recent 
work:  "In  the  exercise  of  this  juris- 
diction the  court  may  permanently 
fix  the  status  of  infants  even  in  disre- 
gard of  the  legal  rights  of  parents, 
when  the  welfare  of  the  infant  requires 
it."  Beach,  Modern  Eq.,  §  1022.  The 
author  cites,  among  others  the  follow- 
ing cases:  Eichards  v.  Collins,  45  N. 
J.  Eq.  283,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  726 ;  State 
V.  Baird,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  194;  Neider  v. 
Eeuff,  29  W.  Va.  751,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St. 
E.  676;  Merritt  v.  Swimley,  82  Va. 
433,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  E.  115;  Stetson  v. 
Stetson,  80  Me.  483 ;  Umlauf  v.  Um- 
lauf,  128  111.  378 ;  Farrar  v.  Farrar,  75 
Iowa,  125. 


§246 


JL'KISIJKTION. 


201 


establishes  its  relationship  to  its  adoptive  parent  or  parents, 
and  the  status  as  fixed  will  be  regarded  as  the  true  one  by  the 
courts  of  other  States.  The  establislinient  of  the  status  at  the 
place  of  the  domicile  is  such  an  adjudication  as  determines  the 
general  right  of  inheritance.^  The  status  of  a  child  where  the 
question  is  as  to  its  legitimacy  may,  in  oiir  opinion,  be  con- 
clusively settled  by  a  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction.    We  do  not  refer  to  cases  where  the  question  is  as  to 


'  In  the  case  of  Ross  v.  Ross,  129 
Mass.  243,  S.  C.  37  Am.  R.  321,  the 
subject  was  discussed  with  signal 
abiHty  and  the  opinion  is  rich  in  au- 
tliorities.  In  the  course  of  the  opin- 
ion it  was  said:  "It  is  a  general 
principle,  that  the  status  or  condition 
of  a  person,  the  relation  in  which  he 
stands  to  another  person,  and  by 
which  he  is  qualified  or  made  capable 
to  take  certain  rights  in  that  other's 
property,  is  fixed  by  the  law  of  the 
domicile ;  and  that  this  status  and  ca- 
pacity are  k)  be  recognized  and  up- 
held in  every  other  State,  so  far  as 
they  are  not  inconsistent  with  its  own 
laws  and  policy.  Subject  to  this  limi- 
tation, upon  the  death  of  any  man, 
the  status  of  those  who  claim  succes- 
sion or  inheritance  in  his  estate  is  to 
be  ascertained  by  the  law  under  which 
that  status  was  acquired ;  his  personal 
property  is  indeed  to  be  distributed 
according  to  the  law  of  his  domicile 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  his  real 
estate  descends  according  to  the  law 
of  the  place  in  which  it  is  situated; 
but  in  either  case,  it  is  according  to 
those  provisions  of  that  law  which 
regulate  the  succession  or  the  inherit- 
ance of  persons  having  such  a  status." 
In  concluding  the  court  said:  "We 
are  not  aware  of  any  case,  in  England 
or  America,  in  which  a  change  of 
status  in  the  country  of  the  domicile, 
with  the  formalities  prescribed  by  its 


laws,  has  not  been  allowed  full  effect, 
as  to  the  capacity  thereby  created  of 
succeeding  to  and  inheriting  property, 
real  as  well  as  personal,  in  any  other 
country,  the  laws  of  which  allow  a 
like  change  of  status  in  a  like  manner 
with  a  like  effect  under  like  circum- 
stances. We  are  therefore  of  opinion 
that  the  legal  status  of  child  of  the  in- 
testate, once  acquired  by  the  demand- 
ant under  a  statute  and  by  a  judicial 
decree  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
While  the  parties  were  domiciled 
there,  continued  after  their  removal 
into  this  commonwealth,  and  that  by 
virtue  thereof  the  demandant  is  en- 
titled to  maintain  this  action."  Con- 
tra Keegan  v.  Geraghty,  101  111.  26. 
The  decision  in  Markover  v.  Krauss, 
132  Ind.  294,  is  we  think  a  sound  one, 
but  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the  rea- 
soning is  not  valid  ;  as  the  proceedings 
for  the  adoption  of  the  child  whose 
interests  were  involved  in  that  case 
fixed  its  status  the  conclusion  of  the 
court  is  right.  See  Vidal  v.  Comma- 
gere,  13  La.  Ann.  516.  But  see  Mor- 
rison V.  Estate  of  Sessions,  70  Mich. 
297,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  500;  Reinders 
r.  Koppelman,  94  ^lo.  344 ;  Eyer  r. 
Beck,  70  Mich.  179.  See,  generally, 
Estate  of  NeAvman,  75  Cal.  213,  S.  C.  7 
Am.  St.  R.  146;  Furgeson  v.  Jones, 
17  Ore.  204,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  808; 
Estate  of  Wardell,  57  Cal.  484. 


292  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  246 

the  effect  of  a  statute^  declaring  what  shall  be  sufficient  to 
make  a  child  legitimate  in  legal  contemplation,  but  to  cases 
where  the  child  and  those  directly  interested  are  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court.  There  is,  it  is  obvious,  a  distinction 
of  a  very  essential  character  between  cases  where  the  question 
of  the  legitimacy  of  the  child  is  adjudicated  and  its  status  fixed 
and  cases  where  the  question  is  as  to  the  effect  of  a  statute.  If 
the  status  of  a  child  is  fixed  by  an  effective  adjudication  at  the 
place  of  domicile  that  status  is,  as  we  believe,  unalterably  es- 
tablished.^ It  is  held  that  where  the  children  of  the  parties  to 
a  suit  or  action  for  divorce  are  not  in  the  State  where  the  de- 
cree or  judgment  is  rendered  an  order  consigning  them  to  the 
custody  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties  is  void,^  but  if  the 
children  are  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  court  and 
there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  proceeding  a  judgment 
determining  to  whose  custody  the  children  shall  be  awarded  is 
valid  although  rendered  upon  constructive  notice.  Where  a 
judgment  or  decree  is  sought  creating  a  personal  charge  against 
an  infant  child  or  affecting  directly  its  property  rights  notice 
must  be  served  upon  it,*  for  without  some   notice  there  is  no 

1  As  to  the  extra  territorial  effect  of  Neediiam,  16  Mass.  157;  West  Cam- 
such  a  statute,  see  Smith  v.  Kelly,  23  bridge  v.  Lexington,  1  Pick.  506,  S.  C. 
Miss.  167,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  87 ;  Scott  11  Am.  Dec.  231 ;  Putnam  v.  Putnam, 
V.  Key,  11  La.  Ann.  232 ;  Harvey  v.  8  Pick.  433 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Lane, 
Ball,32Ind.98;  Miller  ?j.  Miller,  91  N.  113  Mass.  458,  S.  C.  18  Am.  R.  509; 
Y.  315,  S.  C.  43  Am.  R.  669 ;  VanVorhis  Bullock  v.  Bullock,  122  Mass.  3 ;  Milli- 
V.  Brintnall,  86  N.  Y.  18,  S.  C.  40  Am.  kin  v.  Pratt,  125  Mass.  380,  381,  S.  C. 
R.  505.     It  is  held  by   some   of  the  28  Am.  R.  241. 

courts  that  a   statute  declaring  who  ^  Woodworth  u.  Spring,  4  Allen,  321 ; 

shall  be  considered  children  can  have  Van  Orsdal  v.  Van  Orsdal,  67  Iowa, 

no  extraterritorial  effect.     Barnumy.  35;  Kline  v.  Kline,  57  Iowa,  386,  S.C. 

Barnum,  42  Md.  251 ;    Smith  v.  Derr,  10  N.  W.  R.  825. 

34  Pa.  St.  126,  S.  C.  75  Am.  Dec.  641 ;  *  Probably  this  would  not  be  strictly 

Lingen  v.  Lingen,  45  Ala.  410.     See,  true  in  proceedings  purely  in  rem,  but 

generally,  Shaw  v.  Gould,  L.  R.,  3  H.  in  a  general  sense  it  is  true.     Galpin 

L.  C.  55;    Fenton  v.   Livingstone,  3  v.   Page,    18  Wall.   350;    Kremer    v. 

Macqu.   497;    Shedden   v.   Patrick,  1  Haynie,  67  Texas,  450;    Coleman  v. 

Macqu.  835;  Birtwhistle  v.  Vardill,  2  Coleman,  3  Dana,  398,   S.  C.  28  Am. 

Clark  &  F.  571.  Dec.  86;  Allsmiller  v.  Freutchenicht, 

'Greenwood  v.  Curtis,  6  Mass.  358,  86  Ky.  198;    Young  v.  Young,  91  N. 

377,  S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec.  145;  Medway  v.  Car.  359;  Ingersoll  v.  Mangam,  84  N. 


§246 


JURISDICTION. 


293 


jurisdiction  in  such  cases. ^  But  in  cases  where  the  status  of 
the  chihl  is  tlie  onh'  suljject  of  judicial  investigation  the  pro- 
ceeding is  so  far  in  the  nature  of  a  proceeding  in  rem  that  no- 
tice to  the  infant  is  not  essential  to  the  existence  of  jurisdiction. 
This  conclusion  is  supported  b}'  the  uniform  practice  of  ap- 
pointing guardians  for  children  without  giving  notice  to  the 
child  or  children.^  Our  conclusion  finds  support  in  the  long 
settled  rule  that  equity  has  general  authority  over  infants  and 
that  notice  to  them  is  not  indispensably  necessary  where  the 
only  decision  that  can  be  given  relates  to  their  status.'^     But 


Y.  622;  McCloskey  v.  Sweeney,  66 
Cal.  53;  Insurance  Co.  v.  Bangs,  103 
U.  S.  435;  Clianibers  v.  Jones,  72  111. 
275 ;  Moore  v.  Starks,  1  Ohio  St.  369 ; 
Good  V.  Norley,  28  Iowa,  188 ;  Roy  v. 
Rowe,  90  Ind.  54.  As  to  the  validity 
of  proceedings  against  infants  see, 
generally,  Joyce  v.  McAvoy,  31  Cal. 
273,  S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  172;  English  v. 
Savage,  5  Ore.  518;  Wilhite  v.  Wil- 
hite,  124  Ind.  226;  Sites  v.  Eldredge, 
45  X.  J.  Eq.  032,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R. 
769;  Burgess  v.  Kirby,  94  N.  Car.  575; 
Sumner  v.  Sessoms,  94  N.  Car.  371 ; 
Lawson  v.  Moorman,  85  Va.  880. 

'  As  to  whether  a  general  guardian 
can  waive  notice,  see  Smith  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 42  Cal.  485;  Gronfier  v.  Puy- 
mirol,  19  Cal.  629.  Regularly  a  guard- 
ian ad  litem  for  the  infant  should  be 
appointed,  but  the  weight  of  authority 
is  that  the  failure  to  appoint  a  guard- 
ian does  not  make  the  proceedings 
void.  McBride  v.  State,  130  Ind.  525, 
S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  699;  Cohee  v.  Baer 
(Ind.),  32  N.  E.  R.  920;  Coffey  v. 
Proctor,  etc.,  Co.  (Ky.),  20  S.  W.  R. 
286 ;  Drake  v.  Hanshaw,  47  Iowa,  291 ; 
Myers  v.  Davis,  47  Iowa,  325;  Sim- 
mons V.  McKay,  5  Bush,  25.  But  see 
Whitney  v.  Porter,  23  111.  445.  It 
seems  clear  to  us  that  the  failure  to 
appoint  a  guardian  ad  litem  is  not  a 
jurisdictional  defect,   but  is  an  error 


in  a  proceeding  of  which  the  court  has 
jurisdiction.  This  is  clearly  shown  in 
the  case  of  Hoover  v.  Kinsey,  etc., 
Co.,  55  Iowa,  668.  In  that  case  the 
court  cited  among  others  the  following 
cases,  Bloom  v.  Burdick,  1  Hill,  130; 
Timmons  i'.  Timmons,  6  Ind.  8 ;  Knapp 
V.  Crosby,  1  Mass.  479;  Miles  r.  Boy- 
den,  3  Pick.  213 ;  Starbird  v.  Moore, 
21  Vt.  529;  Randalls  v.  Wilson,  24 
Mo.  76;  Barber  v.  Graves,  18  Vt.  290. 

^  Whether  the  age  is  such,  provided 
there  is  non-age,  as  authorizes  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  guardian  is  a  question 
regarding  the  res,  and  a  decision  of 
that  question  while  it  may  be  errone- 
ous is  not  void.  For  this  reason  we 
think  the  decisions  in  such  cases  as 
Lessee  of  Perry  v.  Brainard,  11  Ohio, 
442;  Lewis  v.  Allred,  57  Ala.  628;  Pal- 
mer r.0akley,2  Doug.  (Mich.)  433,  S.C. 
47  Am.  Dec. 41, are  wrong.  As  the  age  of 
the  infant  is  the  thing  to  be  judicially 
investigated  and  determined  the  decis- 
ion goes  to  a  jurisdictional  question, 
and,  as  against  a  collateral  attack  is 
conclusive.  It  seems  very  clear  that 
extrinsic  evidence  would  not  be  ad- 
missible to  impeach  the  record. 
Thompson  v.  Tolmie,  2  Pet.  16,  157. 

'  It  is  held  in  some  of  the  cases  that 
even  in  proceedings  respecting  prop- 
erty rights  as  such  notice  is  not  essen- 
tial.    Sheldon's  Lessee  v.  Newton,  3 


294 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§246 


there  are  express  decisions  upon  the  question  fully  sustaining 
our  conclusion,  and  affirming  that  the  rule  that  notice  is  not 
essential  to  jurisdiction  has  never  been  authoritatively  denied.^ 
The  status  of  a  child  is  a  matter  of  public  concern,  for  the  pub- 
lic have  an  interest  of  an  important  nature  in  the  education 
and  training  of  those  who  are  to  take  upon  themselves  the  du- 
ties of  citizenship.^  This  public  interest  demands  that  the 
courts  determine  the  status  of  parents  and  of  children  so  far  as 
that  status  affects  the  welfare  of  the  public  or  of  the  children 
themselves,  so  that  there  is  a  right  to  judicially  investigate  the 
res,  and  where  this  right  exists  notice  is  not  always  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  existence  of  jurisdiction.  Where  the  consid- 
eration of  the  public  welfare  is  the  paramount  one  the  question 
concerns   the   political  status^  of  the  child,  insomuch  as  the 


Ohio  St.  494;  Heroman  v.  Louisiana 
Inst.,  34  La.  Ann.  805 ;  Robb  v.  Irwin, 
15  Ohio,  689;  Preston  v.  Dunn,  25 
Ala.  507;  McAnear  v.  Epperson,  54 
Texas,  220,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  625. 

^Kurts  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.  (Minn.),  51 
N.  ^y.  R.  221;  Appeal  of  Gibson,  154 
Mass.  378,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  296 ;  Board 
of  Children's  Guardians  v.  Shutter 
(Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.  665.  In  the  first  of 
the  cases  cited  Mitchell,  J.,  speaking 
for  the  court,  said :  "Notice  to  the  in- 
fants is  not  the  important  or  essential 
thing,  for  the  very  necessity  for  ap- 
pointing a  guardian  for  them  arises  out 
of  the  fact  that  they  are  incapable  of 
managing  their  own  estate,  or  of  de- 
termining for  themselves  what  is  for 
their  own  interest.  If  they  are  of 
very  tender  years,  and  strictly  non  sui 
juris,  notice  to  them  would  be  an  idle 
ceremony  and  utterly  useless.  Hence 
we  conclude  that  the  notice  contem- 
plated by  statute  does  not  necessarily 
require  or  include  notice  to  the  infants 
themselves,  but  that  it  is  left  to  the 
sound  discretion  of  the  probate  judge 
to  order  such  notice  to  persons  inter- 
ested  as  natural  guardians  and  next 


of  kin  as  he  shall  deem  most  likely  to 
inform  them  of  the  application,  and 
thus,  through  their  attendance,  advise 
him  of  the  extent  and  condition  of  the 
infant's  estate,  and  of  the  expediency 
prayed  for." 

^  Board  of  Children's  Guardians  v. 
Shutter  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.  665;  Van 
Walters  v.  Board  of  Children's  Guard- 
ians, 132  Ind.  567,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 
568;  Whalen  v.  Olmstead,  61  Conn. 
263,  S.  C.  15  Lawy.  Rep.  Anno.  593; 
Prime  v.  Foote,  63  N.  H.  52;  Farn- 
ham  V.  Pierce,  141  Mass.  203';  Milwau- 
kee School,  etc.,  V.  Milwaukee,  40 
Wis.  328 ;  Ex  parte  Crouse,  4  Whart. 
(Pa.)  9;  Jarrard  v.  State,  116  Ind.  98; 
In  re  Diss  Debar,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  667 ; 
In  re  Donohue,  52  How.  Pr.  251 ;  House 
of  Refuge  v.  Ryan,  37  Ohio  St.  197; 
Roth  V.  House  of  Refuge,  31  Md.  329; 
Reynolds  v.  Howe,  51  Conn.  472;  In 
re  Ferrier,  103  111.  367,  S.  C.  42  Am.  R. 
10;  McClean  V.  Humphreys,  104  111. 
378.  But,  see.  People  v.  Turner,  55 
111.  280. 

^  "The  status  of  an  individual,  used 
as  a  legal  term,  means  the  legal  posi- 
tion of  the  individual  in  or  with  re- 


§  24G  JURISDICTION.  295 

thing  to  be  determined  is  what  will  be  the  result  of  its  training 
and  surroundings  upon  its  future  relations  to  society;  if  evil, 
there  must  be  a  power  to  remove  it  from  those  surroundings, 
since  society  is  entitled  to  protection,  and  if  such  a  power  ex- 
ists the  infant  can  in  no  wise  control  its  exercise,  so  that  notice 
to  it  would  be  vain  and  fruitless.  It  is,  of  course,  not  every 
case  by  any  means,  in  which  a  judicial  decision  is  necessary  to 
fix  the  status  of  a  person;  on  the  contrary,  as  every  one  knows, 
such  a  decision  is  very  seldom  required,  but  when  there  is 
such  a  decision  by  a  court  we  think  that  it  is  in  essence  and 
effect,  a  judicial  judgment.  If  it  be  granted  that  such  a  de- 
cision is  a  judicial  judgment,  then,  it  must  follow  that  as  to 
the  res  within  the  authority  of  the  court,  whatever  the  nature 
of  that  res  may  be,  the  judgment  is  conclusive  as  against  a 
collateral  attack  from  any  quarter.^  A  judgment  establishing 
the  legitimacy  of  a  child,  or  decreeing  the  adoption  of  a  child, 
rendered  upon  due  process  of  law,  is,  as  we  believe,  everywhere 
throughout  the  United  States  entitled  to  ''full  faith  and  credit." 
Where  a  court  is  empowered  to  investigate  the  law  or  the  facts 
of  a  particular  matter  respecting  the  status  of  a  person,  or  of  a 
thing,  it  necessarily  acts  in  a  judicial  capacity  and  its  judgment 
or  decree  is  the  product  of  judicial  power.  In  determining 
the  status  of  a  person,  wlie-re  by  law  it  is  required  to  investi- 

gard   to  the   rest  of   a  community."  or  considered.     F.ven  the  public  has 

By  Brett,  L.  J.,  in  Niboyet  v.  Niboyet,  no  interest  as  against  his  interest.    He 

L.  R.,  4P.  D.  1,  11.  has  no  adversary."     AVe  regard  this 

^Tliis  conclusion  is,  we  know,  op-  reasoning  as  fallacious.     Where  there 

posed   to  the   decision   in   Brown   r.  is  a  res  before  the  court  and  upon  that 

AVheelock,  75Texas,  385,  S.C.  12  S.W.  res  judgment  of  the  court  is   to   be 

R.  Ill,  but  we  respectfully  deny  the  given,  there  is  in  the  giving  of  that 

soundness  of  that  decision.     The  court  decision  a  judgment  of  a  judicial  tri- 

said,   in  speaking  of  the  decree,  "It  bunal.     If  a  jutlgment  it  is  conclusive 

acts  merely  upon  the  status  of  the  ap-  if  there  was  jurisdiction  to  pronounce 

plicant,  enlarges  his  capacity  as  a  free  it.      This  doctrine  is  exemplified  in 

agent,  and,  as  to  all  matters  not  po-  probate   matters  in  the  appointment 

litical,  places  him  upon  the  plane  of  of  guardians  and  the  like.     We  think 

persons  who  have  attained  their  ma-  our  conclusion  is  supported  by  prin- 

jority."      It  is  further  said:      "The  ciple  and  by  the  great  class  of  cases  of 

proceeding  is  f.rpa/^f  and  the  interest  which  The  Matter  of  the  Graduates, 

of  the  applicant  alone  is  to  be  affected  11  Abb.  Pr.  301,  is  a  type. 


296  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  247 

gate  and  determine  that  question,  the  court  exercises  judicial 
functions,  and  hence  its  decision  is  a  judgment  or  decree  when 
entered  of  record.  Under  the  settled  rule  that  courts  can  only- 
exercise  judicial  functions  the  conclusion  must  be  either  that 
there  is  no  authority  to  proceed  at  all,  or,  that  its  judgment 
is  not  void.  Granted  the  authority  to  proceed  the  necessary 
sequence  is  that  the  court  proceeds  judicially,  that  is,  proceeds 
as  a  court.  If  it  does  so  proceed,  its  judgment  is  entitled  to 
respect.  With  the  res  before  it,  the  capacity  to  proceed,  and  a 
right  or  duty  to  decide,  the  decision  must,  certainly,  be  some- 
thing more  than  an  impotent  declaration  or  a  mere  collection 
of  meaningless  words.  The  denial  that  there  is  power  in  a 
decision  in  such  a  matter  is  an  affirmation  that  the  court's 
proceeding  is  idle, — in  truth  a  mere  shallow  pretense — but  the 
concession  that  there  is  vitality  in  it  is  an  affirmation  that  it  is 
entitled  to  faith  and  credit  as  the  adjudication  of  a  court. 

§  247.  Incidental  Jurisdiction. — It  is  not  necessary  that  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  court  should  be  given  in  detail  in  any  statute 
nor  explicitly^  and  minutely  expressed  in  any  rule  or  precedent. 
Annexed  to  a  principal  jurisdiction  there  is,  of  necessity,  in- 
cidental authority,  for  without  such  authority  courts  could  do 
little  if  anything  where  there  was  no  express  statutory  direc- 
tion or  no  precedent  closely  fitting  the  precise  case  in  hand. 
The  old  maxim  that  "It  is  the  duty  of  a  court  to  amplify  its 
jurisdiction,"  is,  at  bottom,  little  else  than  a  declaration  of  the 
doctrine  that  to  the  principal  jurisdiction  incidental  authority 
attaches.^  Where  tliere  is  express  power  to  perform  an  act, 
whether  that  power  comes  from  the  statute  or  the  common  law, 

'It  is  not  meant,  of  course,  that  a  ?j.  Batty, 10  How.  (U.S.)72;  Humphrey 

court  can  create  a  new  jurisdiction  for  v.  Chamberlain,  11   N.  Y.  274.      But 

itself;  that  no  court  can  do.     Attor-  while  a  court  can  not  create  a  new  j  u- 

ney  General  t'.  Sillem,  10  H.  L.  Cases,  risdiction  it   may  exercise   authority 

704;  United  States  w.  Boisdore's  Heirs,  over  incidental  matters  appertaining 

8  How.  (U.  S.)  113;  Schooner  Consti-  to  cases  over  which  the  law  extends 

tution  V.  Woodworth,  1  Scam.    (111.)  its   authority.      A   court   can   not,  of 

611 ;  Edwards  v.  Vandemack,  13  111.  course,  supply  casus   omissus.     In  re 

633 ;    Street  v.  Francis,  3  Ohio,  277 ;  Election  of  Executive  Officers,  31  Neb. 

Grover^.  Coon,  1N.Y.536;  McNulty  262,  S.  C.  10  Lawyer's  R.  Anno.  803. 


§  247  JURISDICTION.  207 

there  is,  as  an  incident  of  that  power,  rightful  authority  to  do 
such  acts  as  are  necessary  to  carry  the  power  into  execution.^ 
What  is  called  ancillary  or  auxiliary  jurisdiction  is  often  a 
species  of  incidental  jurisdiction,  but,  of  course,  not  always  so.'"^ 
A  right  to  issue  an  order  of  injunction  is  often  incident  to  ap- 
pellate jurisdiction,  as  is  the  right  of  a  trial  court  to  entertain 
authority  over  such  an  ancillary  proceeding  as  an  attachment 
against  the  property  of  a  debtor.  So  a  riglit  to  appoint  a  re- 
ceiver may  exist  as  an  incident  of  the  principal  jurisdiction. 
Appellate  courts  often  exercise  jurisdiction  that  is  intrinsically 
original  in  its  nature,  but  is  properly  exercised  because  an  in- 
cident of  the  principal  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal.^  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  where  the  court  is  one  of  inferior  jurisdiction, 
or  where  special  statutory  powers  are  conferred  on  a  court  of 
superior  jurisdiction,  the  rule,  according  to  tlie  great  weight 
of  authority,  is  that  the  statute  shall  be  strictly  construed  and 
the  grant  of  power  not  extended  by  implication.*  In  some  of 
the  cases  this  doctrine  is  extended  to  an  unreasonable  length,  but 
in  many  of  them  it  is  the  dicta  that  are  extravagant  rather  than 
the  decision.  Some  of  the  courts  in  their  rigid  adherence  to 
the  prevailing  doctrine  respecting  special  powers  of  superior 
courts  and  the  character  of  the  jurisdiction  of  inferior  tribunals 
utterly  disregard  the  fundamental  principle  that  wherever  a 
power  is  given  all  that  is  necessary  to  make  it  effectual  is  con- 

A  court  may,  however,  by  analogy  de-  200,  206 ;  Belew  v.  Jones,  56  Miss.  592. 

cideupon  new  questions  and  extend  Ante,  §235. 

principles  to  new  instances.  *  State  i'. Woodson,  41  Mo.  227 ;  Buck 

1  Dreyfus  v.  Mayer,  69  Miss.  282,  S.  v.  Dowley,   16  Gray,   555 ;    Morse  i'. 

C.  12  So.  R.  267.  Presby,  25  N.  H.  299;  Given  v.  Simp- 

*  We  do  not  refer  to  such  jurisdic-  son,  5  Me.  303 ;  Risewick  i\  Davis,  19 

tion  as  one  court  may  exercise  in  aid  Md.  82 ;  Wright  v.  Warner,  1  Doug, 

of  another,  such,  for  instance  as  that  (Mich.)   384;    Thatcher   v.   Powell,  6 

which  a  court  of  equity  may  exercise  Wheat.    119;     People     v.    Whitney's 

in  aid  of  a  court  of  law,  but  we  refer  Point,    102   N.   Y.    81;    Earthman    r. 

to  such  jurisdiction  of  an  incidental  Jones,  2  Yerg.  484 ;  Shivers  r. Wilson, 

nature  as  pertains  to  a  principal  juris-  5  TIar.  &  J.  130;  Piatt  v.  Stewart,  10 

diction  residing  in  one  tribunal.  Mich.  260,  265;  Boyd   v.   Lowry,   53 

*Mitchesonv.  Foster,  3  Metcf.(Ky.)  Miss.  352;    Scogins  v.  Perry,  46  Tex. 

324;  Brown  r.  Caraway,  47  Miss.  608;  111;    Ball  v.    Lastinger,  71  Ga.  678; 

Planters  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  47  Miss.  Anness  v.  Providence,  13  R.  1. 17 ;  Wil- 


298 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§247 


ferred  by  implication.^  There  are,  however,  well  reasoned 
cases  by  able  courts  declaring  that  this  fundamental  principle 
wiW  be  given  effect  where  the  question  concerns  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  inferior  tribunals.^  It  is  true  of  courts  of  superior 
general  jurisdiction  at  least,  that  jurisdiction  may  be  conferred 
by  implication,^  and,  for  our  part,  we  can  see  no  reason  why 
this  may  not  be  true  of  any  court,  meaning  by  the  term  "court" 
a  judicial  tribunal,  having  authority  over  a  general  class  of 
cases,  a  record  and  a  permanent  existence.*  In  some  of  the 
cases  a  distinction  is  made  between  the  existence  of  jurisdiction 
and  the  mode  of  its  exercise,^  but  the  prevailing  doctrine  is  dif- 
ferent. There  are  cases  declaring,  in  effect,  that  there  is  no 
incidental  jurisdiction  over  persons  either  artificial  or  natural 
in  cases  where  a  mode  of  securing  jurisdiction  different  from 
that  of  the  common  law  is  prescribed  by  statute,  and  that  a 
rigid  and  exact  compliance  with  the  statute  is  indispensably 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  jurisdiction.^ 

3  state  V.  Miller,  23  Wis.  634. 

*  Ante,  §  154. 

*  Barrett  v.  Chitwood,  2  Bibb.  431 
Russell  V.  Wheeler,  Hempst.  3.     See 
generally,  Pittsburg  v.  Walter,  69  Pa 
St.  365;   Pensacola  v.  Reese,  20  Fla 
437 ;  Norwegian  Street,  81  Pa.  St.  349 
Chollar,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  66  Cal 
374 ;  Seymour  v.  Judd,   2  N.  Y.  464 
Childs  V.  Smith,  55  Barb.  45 ;  People 
V.  Gates,  57  Barb.  291 ;  Bank  of  Mon- 
roe w.  Widner,  11  Paige,  529;  Ricard 
V.  Smith,  37  Miss.  644;  Dyson  u.West, 
1  Harr.  &  J.  567. 

^Sayre  v.  Elyton,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ala. 
85;  Bradley  v.  Jamison,  46  Iowa,  68; 
Scorpion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marsano,  10 
Nev.  370;  Pollard  v.  Wegener,  13 
Wis.  569 ;  Stewart  v.  Stringer,  41  Mo. 
400;  Brown  v.  Tucker,  7  Colo.  30; 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Owen,  30 
Mich.  441;  Jordan  v.  Giblin,  12  Cal. 
100;  Ricketson  v.  Richardson,  26  Cal. 
149;  Gray  v.  Larimore,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.) 
542;  Granger  v.  Judge,  44  Mich.  384. 
Other  courts   have   declared   a   more 


lard  V.  Fralick,  31  Mich.  431 ;  Weller 
V.  Weyand,  2  Grant's  Cas.  103. 

^  This  general  principle  is  illustrated 
by  such  cases  as  People  v.  Briggs,  50 
N.  Y.  553;  Odell  v.  De  Witt,  53  N.  Y. 
643;  Stref  v.  Hart,  1  N.  Y.  20;  Mitch- 
ell V.  Maxwell,  2  Fla.  594;  In  re  Nea- 
gle,  39  Fed.  R.  833,  S.  C.  135  U.  S.  1; 
Witherspoon  v.  Dunlap,  1  McCord, 
346;  Commonwealth  v.  Conyngham, 
66  Pa.  St.  99;  Mayor,  etc.,  v.  Sands, 
105  N.  Y.  210,  218. 

*  People  V.  Commissioners,  3  Hill, 
599;  Martin,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 
Div.  212;  People  v.  Hicks,  15  Barb. 
153;  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  2 
W.Va.  528,556;  United  States  y.Wyn- 
gall,  5  Hill,  16 ;  Matter  of  Oath  Before 
Justices,  12  Coke,  130;  Ellingham  v. 
Mount,  43  N.  J.  L.  470.  See,  generally, 
Anderson  v.  Levely,  58  Md.  192 ;  Han- 
dy V.  Hopkins,  59  Md.  157;  People  v. 
Chapin,  105  N.  Y.  309;  Carpenter's 
Case,  14  Pa.  St.  486 ;  Matter  of  Canal 
and  Walker  Streets,  12  N.  Y.  406; 
Walker  V.  Ducros,  18  La.  Ann.  703. 


§  248 


JURISDICTION. 


299 


§  248.   Acquisition  of  jurisdiction — Conflict  of  authority. — 

In  accordance  with  the  rule  stated  elsewhere/  that  one  court 
will  not  interfere  with  the  proceedings  or  process  of  another, 
the  doctrine  is  settled  that  where  there  is  concurrent  jurisdic- 
tion the  court  which  first  acquires  jurisdiction  will  retain  it  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  trihunuls.'^  This  general  doctrine 
does  not,  of  course,  prevent  courts  of  equity  from  interfering 
in  cases  where  there  is  an  equitable  right  to  be  enforced  by 
means  of  an  equitable  remedy,  for  the  doctrine  applies  only 
where  the  courts  are  of  co-ordinate  jurisdiction.^  A  suit  or 
action  is  not  always  ended  when  a  judgment  is  entered,  for  the 
authority  of  the  court  still  continues,  to  the  exclusion  of  other 
tribunals,  until  all  incidental  matters  connected  with  the  issu- 
ing and  execution  of  process  are  finally  disposed  of  in  due 
course  of  law.'*     It  is  true,  of  course,  that  jurisdiction   of  the 


liberal  rule  as  in  favor  of  the  action  of 
the  court,  as  Goodell  v.  Starr,  127  Ind. 
198;  Essig  v.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239; 
Quarl  V.  Abbett,  102  Ind.  233,  S.  C.  52 
Am.  R.  (562;  Field  v.  Malone,  102  Ind. 
251;  Fahs  v.  Darling,  82  111.  142,  145; 
Lessee  of  Boswell,  15  Ohio,  447,  467 ; 
Hahn  v.  Kelley,  34  Cal.  391,  S.  C.  94 
Am.  Dec.  742;  Jones  v.  Driskill,  94 
Mo.  190,  S.  C.  7  S.  W.  R.  111.  We 
can  see  no  reason  for  holding  proceed- 
ings absolutely  void  where  there  is  an 
affidavit  and  publication  made  al- 
though there  may  be  errors  and  de- 
fects both  in  the  affidavit  and  the  no- 
tice. If  there  is  a  sufficient  affidavit 
and  notice  to  require  the  court  to  in- 
vestigate and  decide,  its  decision  ought 
upon  principle  and  authority  to  pro- 
tect the  proceedings  against  a  collat- 
eral attack.    See  ante,  §  183,  juu^t,  §  262. 

'  Ante,  §  193. 

« Cliapin  V.  James,  11  R.  I.  86,  S.  C. 
23  Am.  R.  412;  Wethers  r.  Denmead, 
22  Md.  143,  145;  Mapes  v.  People,  60 
111.  523 ;  Tylor  r.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  370 ; 
Western  U.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  21  S. 
W.  R.  638;  Insurance  Co.  r.  I'^^nivers- 


ity,  6  Fed.  R.  443 ;  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Howell,  24  N.  J.  E.  238;  Sharon  v. 
Terry,  36  Fed.  R.  337;  Stearns  v. 
Stearns,  16  Mass.  167 ;  Powers  v.  City 
Councils,  etc.,  116  Mass.  84;  Seibel  v. 
Simeon,  62  Mo.  255;  Thompson  v. 
Hill,  3  Yerg.  167;  Payne  v.  Drewe,  4 
East,  523. 

=•  Gould  V.  Hayes,  19  Ala.  438;  Uhl- 
felder  v.  Levy,  9  Cal.  607. 

*  For  many  purposes  a  case  is  con- 
sidered as  pending  as  long  as  there 
may  be  necessity  for  process,  or  for 
judicial  action  although  there  may 
have  been  a  decree  or  judgment. 
Wegman  r.  Childs,  41  N.Y.  159;  Mann 
r.  Blount,  65  N.  Car.  99,  101 ;  Howell 
V.  Bowers,  2  Cromp.  Mees.  &  R.  621 ; 
Spann  v.  Spann,  2  Hill's  Ch.  152.  See, 
generally,  O'Malley  v.  Reese,  1  Barb. 
643;  Dresser  r.  Van  Pelt,  15  How.  Pr. 
R.  19;  Bank  of  Genesee  r.  Spencer,  15 
How.  Pr.  R.  412;  Gould  v.  Torrance, 
19  How.  Pr.  R.  560.  In  Way  man  c. 
Southard,  10  Wheat.  1,  it  was  said  by 
Chief  Justice  :Marshall  that.  "The  ju- 
risdiction of  a  court  is  not  exhausted 
by  the  rendition  of  a  judgment,  but 


300  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  249 

person  and  of  the  subject  must  be  acquired  substantially  in  the 
mode  prescribed  by  law,  but  in  asserting  that  jurisdiction  must 
be  thus  acquired,  there  is  no  affirmation  that  jurisdiction  may 
not  in  many  instances  be  conferred  by  express  or  implied  agree- 
ment. Where  it  is  competent  to  confer  jurisdiction  by  con- 
sent, there  may  be  a  waiver  of  all  jurisdictional  objections. 
Where  there  is  an  effective  agreement,  either  express  or  im- 
plied, giving  jurisdiction,  then  the  acquisition  is  in  the  mode 
the  law  prescribes.  Consent  can  not  confer  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  subject,  but  facts  may  be  admitted  which  enable  the 
court  to  rightfully  assume  jurisdiction.^ 

§  249.  Retaining  Jurisdiction  once  acquired. — Where  a  court 
once  acquires  jurisdiction  it  will  retain  it  although  it  may  be- 
come necessary  to  decide  questions  which  in  strictness  belong 
to  another  court  or  to  grant  relief  that  can  be  more  appropri- 
ately granted  by  courts  of  a  different  class. ^  This  rule  is  nec- 
essary in  order  to  prevent  the  dissection  of  causes  into  frag- 
ments and  the  distribution  of  one  part  to  one  court  and  another 
part  to  another  court. ^     The  policy  of  the  law  is  to  avoid  the 

continues  until  that  judgment  shall  be  40  Pa.  St.  151 ;    Potter  v.  Adams  Ex., 

satisfied.     Many   questions  arise  on  24  Mo.   159 ;    Lovelady  v.   Davis,  33 

the  process  subsequent  to  the  judg-  Miss.  577. 

ment,  in  which  jurisdiction  is  to  be  ^  What  was  said  in  Barton  v.  Saund- 

exercised."     See    Hawes  v.    Orr,    10  ers,  IG  Ore.  51,  S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  E.  261, 

Bush  (Ky.),  431;  Anthony  v.  Dunlap,  although  not  addressed  to  the  phase 

8  Cal.  26.  of  the  subject  here  under  immediate 

'  "Consent  of  parties,"  it  was  said  discussion,  is  a  good  statement  of  the 

in  Railway  Co.  v.  Ramsey,  22  Wall,  general  doctrine.     "It  is  an  element- 

322,  327,  "can  not  give  the  courts  of  ary  principle,"  said  the  court,  "that 

the    United    States    jurisdiction,  but  where  a  court  of  justice  acquires  juris- 

parties   may  admit  the  existence  of  diction  over  the  subject-matter  and 

facts  which  show  jurisdiction,  and  the  the  person,  it  becomes  its  right  and 

court  may  act  judicially  upon  such  ad-  duty    to     determine    every    question 

mission."       See,    also,    Thornton    v.  which  may  arise  in  the  cause  without 

Baker,  15  R.  I.  553,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  interference  from  any  other  tribunal." 

925;  Ela  v.  McConihe,  35  N.  H.  279;  ^Henderson  v.  Henderson,  3  Hare's 

Hines  v.  Mullins,  25  Ga.  696;    Brown  Ch.  100,  115;  Indiana,  etc.,  v.  Koons, 

V.  Haines,  12  Ohio,  1;    Mandeville  v.  105  Ind.  507.     See,  generally,  Thomas 

Mandeville,  35  Ga.   243;    Harbin  v.  v.  Joslin,  36  Minn.  1,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St. 

Bell,  54  Ala.  389;  Turner?;.  Billagram,  R.  624;    Hentig  v.  Redden,  46  Kan. 

2  Cal.  520;  Maltimore  v.  Maltimore,  231,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  91;    Parnell  v. 


§  250 


JURISDICTION. 


301 


splitting  of  demands  as  well  as  the  dissection  of  cases  into 
parts. ^  It  is  obvious  that  the  trial  of  cases  piecemeal  would 
result  in  great  evil  for  it  might  happen  that  one  part  of  a  con- 
troversy would  be  in  one  tribunal  and  another  part  in  another 
court,  so  that  there  might  be  diverse  decisions  in  the  same 
case.  The  most  familiar,  and,  perhaps,  the  most  distinct 
enunciation  of  the  general  doctrine  is  that  of  the  courts  of 
equity,  for  the  rule  has  often  been  enforced  by  those  courts.^ 

§  250.  Authority  of  sovereignty  over  property  within  its 
territory. — The  basis  upon  which  ultimately  rests  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  courts  of  a  State  or  nation  over  property  within  its 
territorial  limit  is  that  of  the  power  of  the  sovereign  over  the 
property.     The  source  of  judicial  power  is,  it  is  evident,  not 


Hahn,  Gl  Cal.  131;  Phelan  v.  Gardi- 
ner, 43  Cal.  306;  Minor  v.  Hill,  58 
Ind.  176,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  71 ;  Colton 
V.  Onderdonk,  69  Cal.  155;  Denegre 
V.  Denegre,  33  La.  Ann.  689;  Jen- 
kins V.  Nolan,  79  Ga.  295;  Fouche  v. 
Harrison,  78  Ga.  359 ;  Stewart  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 23  Pa.  St.  401. 

'  Guernsey  v.  Carver,  8  Wend.  492, 
S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  60;  Brannenberg  v. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  13  Ind.  103;  In- 
graham  V.  Hall,  11  Serg.  &  R.  78; 
Turner  v.  Plowden,  2  Gill.  &  J.  455,  S. 
C.  23  Am.  Dec.  596;  Dutton  v.  Shaw, 
35  Mich.  431 ;  Marsh  i-.  Pier,  4  Rawle, 
273,  S.  C.  26  Am.  Dec.  131 ;  AVarren  v. 
Comings,  6  Cush.  103;  AVittick  v. 
Traum,  27  Ala.  562,  S.  C.  62  Am.  Dec. 
778.  But  the  rule  against  splitting 
demands  does  not,  of  course,  apply 
where  there  are  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent claims.  Whittier  v.  Collins, 
15  R.  I.  90,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  879; 
Byrnes  v.  Byrnes,  102  N.  Y.  4;  Gil- 
man,  etc.,  V.  Foote,  22  Iowa,  560. 

'Mr.  Pomeroy  thus  states  the  rule: 
"Where  a  court  of  equity  has  obtained 
jurisdiction  of  some  portion  or  feature 
of  a  controversy  it  may,  and  will  in 


general,  proceed  to  decide  the  whole 
case,  and  to  award  complete  relief,  al- 
though the  rights  of  the  party  are 
strictly  legal,  and  the  final  relief 
granted  is  of  the  kind  which  might  be 
conferred  by  a  court  of  law."  1  Pome- 
roy Eq.,  §  231.  At  another  place  he 
says:  "A  suit  in  equity  must  include 
the  entire  transaction,  the  plaintiff 
can  not  divide  it  and  sue  in  equitv 
for  a  part  and  at  law  for  a  part." 
Ibid,  §  181,  note.  The  cases  sustain- 
ing the  general  doctrine  are  very 
numerous,  among  them  are  Feder  v. 
Field,  117  Ind.  386;  Notama,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Clarkin,  14  Cal.  544;  More  v. 
]\Iassini,  32  Cal.  590 ;  Oelrichs  v.  Spain, 
15  Wall.  211 ;  Hamilton  r.  Cummings, 
1  Johns.  Ch.  517;  Crane  v.  Bunnell, 
10  Paige,  333 ;  Billups  v.  Sears,  5  Gratt. 
31 ;  Corporation  of  Carlisle  v.  Wilson, 
13Vesey,  276;  Martin  r.  Tidwell,  36 
Ga.  332,  345;  Franklin  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Crea,  4  Greene  (Iowa),  229;  Corly  v. 
Bean,  44  Mo.  379;  People  v.  Chicago, 
53  111.  424;  Carlisle  v.  Cooper,  21  N. 
J.  E(|.  576;  Sanborn  v.  Kittredge,  20 
Vt.  632. 


302  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  251 

greater  in  any  respect  than  the  government  of  which  it  consti- 
tutes one  of  the  departments.  That  the  sovereign  power  may 
regulate  the  transfer  and  use  of  real  property  within  the  do- 
main over  which  the  power  extends  is  clear  and  undoubted. 
No  other  power  can  control  that  property.^  Personal  property 
within  the  dominion  of  the  sovereignty  is  subject  to  its  laws^ 
and,  therefore,  bound  by  the  judgments  and  decrees  of  its  ju- 
dicial tribunals. 2  A  legal  fiction  is  in  some  cases  recognized 
which  gives  the  situs  of  the  owner  as  that  of  the  property,  but 
this  fiction  yields  where  justice  demands, •''  and  is  not  finding 
favor  with  the  courts.  The  many  cases  in  which  it  has  been 
adjudged  that  property  of  a  non-resident  may  be  seized  under 
a  writ  of  attachment  issued  by  the  court  of  the  State  in  which 
the  property  is  situated  show  of  how  little  practical  value  the 
legal  fiction  is,  and  what  a  slender  effect  it  has  in  legal  pro- 
ceedings.* 

§  251.  Territorial  Jurisdiction  of  courts. — The  territorial 
jurisdiction  exercised  by  the  American  courts  is  prescribed  by 
written  laws  and  these  laws  define  the  geographical  limits 
within  which  the  courts  may  rightfully  act.  It  is,  however,  a 
fundamental    rule  that  no  State  court  can    have  jurisdiction 

1  Story  on  Conflict  of  Laws,  §  5-52.  Ga.  440,  S.  C.  76  Am.  Dec.  662,  note. 

See,  also,  Watts  v.  Waddle,  6  Pet.  389 ;  Dr. Wharton  says  of  the  fiction  that  it 

French  v.  Hay,  22  Wall.  231 ;  McBride  is  "gradually  vanishing  from  the  field 

V.  Harn,  48  Iowa,  151.  of  practical  jurisprudence."  See,  upon 

*  Clark  V.  Tarbell,  58  N.  H.  88 ;  Milne  the  general  subject,  Herver  v.  Rhode 
V.  Moreton,  6  Binney,  353;  Bissell  v.  Island,  etc..  Works,  93  U.  S.  664;  Ez 
Briggs,  9  Mass.  462 ;  Stringer  v.  Insur-  parte  Dickinson,  29  S.  Car.  453,  S.  C. 
ance  Co.,  L.  R.,  4  Q.  B.  676;  Street  v.  13  Am.  St.  R.  749;  Warner  v.  Jaffray, 
Insurance  Co.,  12  Rich  (So.  Car.),  13.  96  N.  Y.  248;    Pierce  v.  O'Brien,  129 

^Ames  Ironworks  v.  Warren,  76  Ind.  Mass.  314,  S.  C.  37  Am.  R.  360 ;  Paine 

512,S.C.  40  Am.  R.  2.58;  New  V.Walker,  u.  Lester,  44  Conn.  196,  S.  C.  26  Am. 

108  Ind.  365, 368 ;  Tod  v.  Wick,  36  Ohio  R.  442 ;  Moore  v.  Church,  70  Iowa,  208, 

St.  370;  Haskell  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.  S.  C.  59  Am.  R.  439;  Strieker  v.  Tink- 

173 ;    Green  v.  Van  Buskirk,  7  Wall,  ham,  35  Ga.  176,  S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  280 ; 

139;  Hardawayt'.Semmes,.38  Ala.657.  Mason  v.  Strieker,  37  Ga.  262;  Butler 

See,  generally,  Castrique  v.  Imrie,  L.  v.  Wendell,  57  Mich.  62,  S.  C.  58  Am. 

R.,  4  H.  L.  414.  R.  .329;    Ilibernia  Bank  v.  Lacombe, 

*  Molyneux  v.  Seymour,  etc.,  Co.,  30  84  N.  Y.  367,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  518. 


6  251 


JURISDICTION. 


303 


beyond  the  limits  of  the  State  of  its  creation.'  The  Federal 
trial  courts  liuve  their  districts  prescribed  by  written  laws  and 
their  authority  must  be  exercised  within  the  territory  over 
which  they  are  given  authority.  But  while  the  territorial  ju- 
risdiction of  the  courts  is  fixed  by  positive  laws,  still  there  are 
rules  of  the  common  law  wliicii  are  called  to  the  aid  of  such 
statutes.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  State  courts  of  general  juris- 
diction is  often  limited  to  counties,  and  where  so  limited  no 
trial  can  be  rightfully  conducted  beyond  the  limited  territory.^ 
There  may  be  courts  of  concurrent  jurisdiction  within  the  same 
territorial  limits,  and  there  may  be  courts  of  different  sover- 
eignties, as,  for  instance,  the  Federal  and  State  courts  exercis- 
ing powers  and  functions  within  the  same  territory.^  Where 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  is  limited  to  a  designated  county,  it 
can  not,  as  we  have  said,  rightfully  conduct  a  trial  in  any 
other    county,  and,   according    to    some  of    the  cases,   a  trial 


'  Booth  r.  Clark,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  321 ; 
Watkins  r.  Ilolman,  16  Pet.  25 ;  Phelps 
V.  Brewer,  9  Cush.  390,  S.  C.  57  Am. 
Dec.  56 ;  Lovejoy  v.  Albee,  33  Me.  414, 
S.  C.  54  Am.  Dec.  630;  McVicker  v. 
Beedy,  31  Me.  314,  S.  C.  50  Am.  Dec. 
666;  Dearing  v.  Bank,  5  Ga.497,  S.  C. 
48  Am.  Dec.  300;  Welch  v.  Sykes,  3 
Gil.  197,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  689;  De 
Witt  V.  Burnett,  3  Barb.  89 ;  Gilbreath 
V.  Bunce,  65  Mo.  350;  Wimer  v. 
Wimer,  82  Va.  890,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R. 
126. 

'  We  restrict  our  statement  to  trials 
for  the  reason  that  in  most  of  the 
States  provision  is  made  for  the  exe- 
cution of  final  process  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
the  court.  It  is  true  of  State  trial 
courts,  as  a  general  rule,  that  their 
territorial  limits  are  laid  off  into  cir- 
cuits, districts,  or  the  like,  and  that 
these  circuits  or  districts  are  usually 
composed  of  geographical  divisions 
called  counties,  but,  as  a  rule,  provis- 
ion is  made  for  holding  terms  of  court 


in  each  county  of  the  circuit  or  dis- 
trict, and  where  this  is  done  trials 
must  be  conducted  in  the  designated 
county  and  not  elsewhere  in  the  cir- 
cuit or  district. 

^  While  the  Federal  courts  exercise 
powers  and  functions  within  the  same 
territory,  the  jurisdictions  are  inde- 
pendent and  distinct,  for  the  tribunals 
are,  in  legal  contemplation,  the  crea- 
tions of  different  sovereignties.  United 
States  V.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542; 
Tarble  Cases,  13  Wall.  397;  Ableman 
V.  Booth,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  506;  License 
Cases,  5  How.  (U.  S.)  504.  There  are 
some  cases,  of  course,  in  which  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  tribunal  is 
exclusive,  as  patent  cases  proper, 
copyright  cases,  and  other  cases  where 
the  questions  are,  in  the  strict  sense, 
Federal  questions.  Armstrong  r.  Et- 
tlesohn,  36  Fed.  R.  209;  Ames  r.  Ha- 
ger,  36  Fed.  R.  129.  See,  generally, 
In  re  Loney,  134  U.  S.  372 ;  Clark  v. 
Bever,  139  U.  S.  96.  As  to  matters 
affecting  interests  in  patents,  as  suits 


304 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


,^  252 


in  any  county  other  than  that  designated  is  a  nullity.^ 
There  is,  as  it  seems  to  us,  much  reason  for  holding  that  a 
trial  in  the  wrong  county  is  never  void  where  there  is  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  general  class  of  cases  and  jurisdiction  of  the  person, 
but  the  weight  of  authority  is  different,  for  it  is  generally  held, 
as  we  have  elsewhere  shown, "^  that  there  must  be  jurisdiction 
of  the  particular  subject. 

§  252.  Local  actions. — The  general  rule  is  that  actions  af- 
fecting the  title  to  land,  to  recover  possession  thereof  and  to 
recover  for  injuries  thereto  must  be  brought  in  the  county  in 
which  the  land  lies.  These  actions  are  local  and  the  venue  is 
to  be  laid  in  the  county  where  the  land  is  situated.^  The  tend- 
ency of  the  decisions  is  to  enlarge  the  rule  that  prevailed  at 
common  law  and  place  in  the  class  of  local  actions  all  actions 
that  in  any  wise  concern  the  possession  of  land,  the  estate 
therein  or  injuries  thereto.  This  is  shown  by  many  of  the 
cases  to  which  we  have  referred  in  the  note,  and  is  shown  by 
decisions   in  other  cases.     Thus  actions  for  injuries  to  land 


for  specific  performance  and  the  like, 
see  Marsh  v.  Nichols,  140  U.  S.  344 
Dale  Tile  Co.  v.  Hyatt,  125  U.  S.  46 
Felix  V.  Scharnweber,  125  U.  S.  54 
Reeves  v.  Corning,  51  Fed.  R.  774 
New  V.  Walker,  108  Ind.  365. 

1  Ex  parte  Gibson,  89  Ala.  174,  S.  C. 
7  S.  R.  833;  Hill  v.  Taylor,  50  Mich. 
549,  S.  C.  15  N.  W.  R.  899;  Ex  parte 
McGrew,  40  Texas,  472,  474;  Chap- 
man V.  Morgan,  2  G.  Greene,  374; 
Boyer  v.  Moore,  42  Iowa,  544 ;  Mc- 
Means  v.  Cameron,  51  Iowa,  691.  See, 
generally,  Carroll  v.  Langan,  18  N.  Y. 
Supp.  290 ;  In  re  Kamaha,  2  Hawaiian, 
444;  Ex  parte  Edgington,  10  Nev.  215, 
217 ;  Pearce  v.  Atwood,  13  Mass.  324 ; 
Gates  V.  AVagner,  46  Iowa,  355. 

-'  §§  238,  239. 

'  Thompson  v.  Locke,  66  Texas,  383 ; 
Bent  V.  Maxwell,  3  New  Mex.  158,  S. 
C.3Pac.R.721  ;  KippiJ.  Cook,  46  Minn. 
635,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  257;  Thorn  v. 


Maurer,  85  Mich.  569,  S.  C.  48  N.  W. 
R.  640 ;  Urton  v.Woolsey,  87  Cal.  38,  S. 
C.  25  Pac.  R.  154 ;  Norce  v.  Richmond, 
etc.,  Co.,  33  Fed.  R.  469;  Atkins  v. 
Wabash,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  161 ;  Or- 
cutt  V.  Hanson,  71  Iowa,  514,  S.  C.  32 
N.  W.  R.  482;  Coryell  v.  Linthecum 
(Texas),  11  S.W.  R.  1092;  Freeman  v. 
Thomson,  50  Hun,  340;  Drinkhouse  u. 
Spring  Valley,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Cal.  308,  S. 
C.  22  Pac.  R.  252;  Home  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  Co.,  49  Hun,  76 ;  Marcum  v.  Pow- 
ers(Ky.),9S.W.R.255;  Bakerv.  Fire- 
man's Fund,73  Cal.  182,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R. 
686;  Meehan  v.  Edwards  (Ky.),  18  S. 
W.  R.  519 ;  McLaughlin  v.  McCrory,  55 
Ark.  442,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  762;  Fritts 
V.  Camp,  94  Cal.  393,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R. 
867;  Norfolk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Postal,  etc., 
Co.,  88  Va.  920,  929,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R. 
689,  690,  691 ;  Cox  v.  Little  Rock,  etc., 
Co.,  55  Ark.  454,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  630; 
Bennett  v.  Mclntire,  121  Ind.  231. 


^  252  jUKisDicTioN,  305 

from  fires  communicated  by  locomotives  are  held  to  be  local.' 
So,  as  it  has  been  held,  an  action  to  collect  a  drainage  assess- 
ment is  local  and  must  be  brought  in  the  county  where  the 
land  assessed  is  located.-  In  another  case  it  was  held  that 
where  a  trustee  sought  relief  on  the  ground  that  the  judgments 
assailed  wrongfully  preferred  creditors  and  were  apparent  liens 
upon  land,  the  jurisdiction  was  in  the  county  where  the  land  was 
located.'^  Where  a  suit  involves  the  existence  of  a  resulting 
trust  in  land  the  action  is  regarded  as  local.*  The  general  doc- 
trine is  carried  very  far  by  many  of  the  cases,  for  it  is  held  that 
if  a  local  action  is  brought  in  tlie  wrong  county  all  the  pro- 
ceedings are  void,  no  matter  what  the  defendant  may  do.  We 
can  not  yield  to  the  extreme  view  asserted  by  many  of  the 
courts.  We  do  not  doubt  that  where  objection  is  seasonably 
and  properly  made  the  error  in  bringing  the  action  in  the 
wrong  county  will  be  fatal,  nor  do  we  doubt,  that,  if  there  is 
no  opportunity  to  defend,  the  proceedings  will  be  void.  We 
do,  however,  believe  that  where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  class  of  cases,  as,  for  instance,  of  actions  for  injuries 
to  real  estate,  and  the  defendant  appears  and  contests  the  claim 
of  the  plaintiff  without  making  any  objection  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion, the  judgment  rendered  in  the  particular  case  is  not  void. 
If  a  railway  company  sued  in  the  wrong  county  for  injuries  to 
land  by  fire  communicated  by  its  locomotives  appears  and  con- 
tests the  case  on  its  merits  it  certainly  can  not,  on  principle, 
be  permitted  to  subsequently  aver  that  the  judgment  is  a  mere 
^nullity.  So,  if  a  land  owner  brings  an  action  for  overflowing 
his  land  against  a  mill  owner  in  the  county  where  the  latter 
resides  and  not  in  the  county  where  the  land  is  situated,  the 
judgment  rendered  would  not,  in  our  opinion,  be  assailable  in  a 

'Indiana,   etc.,  Co.   v.  Foster,    107  Spalding  r.  Kelly,  66  Mich.  693 ;  State 

Ind.  430.  V.  Crevier,  50  N.  J.  L.  351;   Tillotson 

»  Dowden  v.  State,  106  Ind.  157,  v.  Pritchard,  60  Vt.  94 ;   New  Home, 

»  Sweetser  v.  Smith,  22  Abbott  N.  C.  etc.,  Co.  r.  Wray,  28  S.  Car.  86 ;  Terri- 

319,  S.  C.  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  378.  tory  v.  Judge,  5  Dak.  275 ;  Sloss  v.  De 

*  Appeal  of  Hays,  123  Pa.  St.  110,  S.  Toro,  77  Cal.  129 ;    Franklin  v.  Dutton, 

C.  16   Atl.   R.   600.     See,   generally,  79  Cal.  605,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  964. 
20 


306  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  252 

collateral  proceeding.     In  the  cases  we  have  adduced  by  way 
of  illustration  we  think  the  right  to  object  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  particular  subject  may  be  waived.     If  a  plaintiff  invokes 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  court   in  one  of  a  general  class  of  cases 
over  which  it  has  jurisdiction  plain  principles  of  equity  would 
estop  him  from  averring  that  in  the  particular  instance  there 
was  no  jurisdiction,  and,  as  the  principle  of  estoppel  is  recip- 
rocal, we  can  see  no  reason  why  a  defendant  who  consents  to 
try  the  case  on  its  merits,  although  in  the  wrong  county,  may 
not  be  held  to  have  waived  all  objections  to  the  jurisdiction. 
Here,  again,  we  come  to  what  the  writers  conceive  to  be  an 
error  in  the  generally  accepted  classification  of  the  different 
kinds   of  jurisdiction   and  that  error,    as   we  have   elsewhere 
endeavored  to  show,  is  in  blending  in  one  division  the  two 
species,  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  particular  subject.     We  believe   that  in   the   one   species 
there  can  be  no  waiver  and  in  the  other  that  there  may  be  a 
waiver  by  agreement.     Our  position  is  not  in  the  least  weak- 
ened by  the  well  established  doctrine  that  the  courts  of  one  State 
can  not  give  judgment  for  possession  of  lands  in  another  State,  or 
for  damages  arising  from  injuries  to  such  lands. ^  The  doctrine  to 
which  we  have  just  referred  does  not  conflict  with  our  views, 
for  the  reason  that  no  State  or  its  instrumentalities   can  have 
power  within  the  domains  of  another  sovereign.     Within  the 
territorial  limits  of  its  own  State  a  court  may  unquestionably 
exercise  jurisdiction  by  agreement  of  parties  in  many  particu- 
lar instances  where  if  objection  be  made  a  different  proceeding 
than  that  adopted  by  the  agreement  of  the  parties  must  be  pur- 
sued.    We  do  not,  of  course,  assert  that  where  there  is  no  ju- 
risdiction of  the  general  class  of  cases,  consent  may  confer  it; 
on  the  contrary,  we  assume  as  the   basis  of  our  position  that 
there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class.     This  leaves  only  the 

*  Allin  u.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Co.,  150  American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Middleton,  80 

Mass.  560,  S.  C.  6  Lawy.  Rep.  Anno.  N.  Y.  408;  Cragin  v.  Lovell,  88  N.  Y. 

416;  Eachus  v.  Trustees,  17  111.  534;  258;  McKenna  i;.  Fisk,  1  How.  (U.  S.> 

DuBreuil  V.Pennsylvania  Co. , 130  Ind.  241;    Champion  v.  Doughty,  18  N.  J. 

137;    Dodge  v.  Colby,  108  N.  Y.  445;  L.  3. 


§252 


JURISDICTION, 


8o: 


question  of  the  right  to  exercise  that  general  jurisdiction  in  a 
particular  instance  whore  the  parties  agree  that  it  may  l)C  ex- 
ercised. In  penal  actions  and  criminal  prosecutions  jurisdic- 
tion depends  in  a  great  degree  upon  locality,  and,  as  a  rule, 
such  actions  and  prosecutions  must  be  conducted  in  the  county 
where  the  penal  act  was  performed  or  the  crime  committed.^ 
Each  State  has  exclusive  power  to  punish  offenders  for  a  vio- 
lation of  its  penal  or  criminal  laws,  and  prosecutions  are  nec- 
essarily local,  since  such  laws  have  no  extra-territorial  effect,^ 
but  it  is  stated  by  some  of  the  authorities  that  a  crime  against  a 
nation  may  be  punished  although  not  committed  within  its 
territory.-^  The  general  doctrine  is  that  where  a  nation's  flag 
is  the  emblem  and  representative  of  authority  the  nation  has 
power  to  prosecute  and  punish  offenders  against  its  laws.  This 
rule  confers  a  right  to  prosecute  and  convict  the  violators  of 
law  in  cases  where  the  crime  is  committed  upon  the  high  seas.* 
While  it  is  true  as  a  general  rule  that  each  government  must 
enforce  its  own  criminal  laws  yet  it  is  held  that  a  State  may  in- 
flict punishment  for  a  crime  defined  by  its  own  laws  and  also 


>  State  V.  Howard,  31  Vt.  414,  415 ; 
State  V.  Hatch,  91  Mo.  568,  S.  C.  4  S. 
W.  R.  502;  State  v.  Knapp,  40  Kan. 
148,  S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  728;  Landa  v. 
State,  26  Texas  App.  580,  S.  C.  10  S. 
W.  R.  218;  State  r.  McCoy,  42  La. 
Ann.  228,  S.  C.  7  S.  R.  330;  Nichols 
V.  State,  28  Texas  App.  105,  S.  C.  12 
S.  W.  R.  500;  Fisher  v.  Ballard,  109 
N.  Car.  574,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  799; 
Conner  r.  State,  29  Fla.  455,  S.  C.  10  S. 
R.  891 ;  Watt  v.  People,  126  111.  9,  S.  C. 
1  Lawy.  Rep.  Ann.  403 ;  Sims  v.  State, 
28  Texas  App.  447,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R. 
653;  State  r.  Rider,  46  Kan.  332,  S.  C. 
26  Puc.  R.  745. 

'  National  Bank  v.  Price,  33  Md.  487 ; 
Bettys  V.  Railway  Co.,  37  Wis.  323. 
See,  generally,  Warrander  v.  Warren- 
der,  9  Bligh,  89;  Sims  v.  Sims,  75  N. 
Y.  466 ;   Commonwealth  v.  Green,  17 


Mass.  515 ;  Chase  v.  Blodgett,  10  N.  H. 
22;  State  v.  Chandler,  3  Hawks,  393; 
People  V.  Kelley,  38  Cal.  138,  140; 
Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  371, 
382 ;  United  States  r.  Bevans,  3  Wheat. 
336;  United  States  v.  Griish,  5  Mason, 
290;  United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5 
Wheat.  76;  State  v.  Carter,  3  Dutch. 
499. 

^  1  Wharton's  Crim.  Law,  §  1862,  cit- 
ing Bollman  ex  parte,  4  Cranch,  75; 
United  States  v.  Magill.  1  Wash.  C.  C. 
463;  United  States  r.  Thompson,  1 
Sumn.  168. 

*The  Marianna  Flora.  11  Wheat.  1; 
United  States  r.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  194 ; 
Rex  V.  Allen,  1  Moody,  C.  C.  494 ;  Rex 
V.  Allen,  7  Car.  &  P.  664 ;  United  States 
V.  Gordon,  5  Blatch.  18;  United  States 
V.  Ross,  1  Gall,  624 ;  United  States  v. 
Stevens,  4  Wash.  547. 


308 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  252 


by  those  of  the  United  States.^  A  familiar  illustration  of  this 
doctrine  is  supplied  by  the  cases  which  hold  that  the  States 
may  enact  laws  for  the  punishment  of  persons  who  counterfeit 
the  coin  of  the  national  government.  Where  the  offense  is  de- 
fined exclusively  by  the  Federal  laws  and  is  not  defined  by 
State  laws  the  jurisdiction  to  punish  is  in  the  Federal  courts.^ 
The  rule  that  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  penal  action  or  a 
criminal  prosecution  is  in  the  county  where  the  offense  was 
committed  does  not  require  that  the  entire  transaction  or  acts 
constituting  the  offense  should  be  committed  in  one  county; 
on  the  contrary,  jurisdiction  may  exist  in  a  county  where  one 
of  the  constituent  parts  of  the  offense  was  committed  although 
parts  of  the  same  offense  were  committed  in  some  other  county, 
or,  indeed,  even  in  some  other  State. '"^     It  has  been  held  that  in 


'  Hancock  v.  Yaden,  121  Ind.  366, 
374;  Sizemore  v.  State,  3  Head.  26; 
People  V.  White,  34  Cal.  183;  Fox  v. 
State,  5  How.  410;  United  States  v. 
Field,  16  Fed.  R.  778;  Chess  v.  State, 
1  Blackf.  198;  Snoddy  v.  Howard,  51 
Ind.  411.  See,  generally.  State  v.  Mc- 
Pherson,  9  Iowa,  53 ;  Moore  v.  People, 
14  How.  17, 18 ;  State  v.  Brown,  2  Ore. 
221 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Tenney,  97 
Mass.  50;  Jett's  Case,  18  Gratt.  933. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  the  class 
of  cases  under  immediate  considera- 
tion the  State  does  not  assume  to  en- 
force the  laws  of  the  nation,  for  it  does 
no  more  than  enforce  its  own  laws. 
The  laws  are  cumulative  in  a  certain 
sense,  but  they  are,  nevertheless,  the 
laws  of  separate  sovereignties.  See, 
upon  the  general  suVjject,  Common- 
wealth V.  Felton,  101  Mass.  204;  Com- 
monwealth V.  Tenney,  97  Mass.  50 
Commonwealth  v.  Barry,  116  Mass.  1 
State  V.  Tuller,  34  Conn.  280;  Ely  v 
Peck,  7  Conn.  239;  Commonwealth  v 
Carpenter,  100  Mass.  204. 

'  Bridges,  ex  parte,  2  Woods,  428 ; 
Brown  v.  United  States,  14  Am.  Law 
Reg.  (N.  S.)  566;    State  v.  Shelley,  11 


Lea.  594;  People  v.  Sweetman,  3 
Parker,  C.  R.  358 ;  State  v.  Adams,  4 
Blackf.  146;  State  v.  Kirkpatrick,  32 
Ark.  117. 

3  Archer  v.  State,  106  Ind.  426 ;  Green 
V.  State,  66  Ala.  40,  S.  C.  41  Am.  R. 
744 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Holder,  9  Gray, 
7 ;  Tipping  v.  State,  14  Ga,  422 ;  Tyler 
V.  People,  8  Mich.  320 ;  People  v.  Dim- 
ick,  107  N.  Y.  13;  Mack  v.  People,  82 
N.  Y.  235 ;  Commonwealth  v.  White, 
123  Mass.  430;  People  v.  WilHams,  24 
Mich.  156,  S.  C.  9  Am.  R.  119;  State 
V.  Pauley,  12  Wis.  537 ;  Commonwealth 
V.  Costley,  118  Mass.  16,  26;  State  v. 
Ward,  49  Conn.  429;  Beal  v.  State,  15 
Ind.  378 ;  State  v.  Bartlett,  11  Vt.  650 ; 
Massie  v.  Commonwealth,  90  Ky.  485, 
S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  419 ;  In  re  Kelly,  46 
Fed.  R.  653;  State  v.  Underwood,  49 
Me.  181 ;  Steerman  v.  State,  10  Mo.  503 ; 
State  V.  Kreichbaum,  81  Iowa,  633,  S. 
C.  47  N.  W.  R.  872.  See,  generally, 
"Crimes — Their  jurisdiction  as  affect- 
ed by  county  lines,"  24  Cent.  C.  J.  7; 
Jurisdiction  in  Guiteau's  Case,  2  Crim. 
Law  Mag.  804;  Lancaster  v.  State,  91 
Tenn.  267,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  777;  State 
V.  Denton,  6 Cold.  (Tenn.),  539;  Stan- 


§  253  JURISDICTION.  309 

actions  to  enforce  penalties  given  by  statute  there  is  no  constitu- 
tional right  to  a  trial  by  jury  in  the  county  where  the  offense 
was  committed,  and  tliat  the  legislature  may,  therefore,  right- 
fully provide  for  a  trial  in  some  other  county,'  but  this  does 
not  imply  that  an  action  to  recover  a  penalty  inflicted  by  way 
of  punishment  is  not  in  its  nature  local,  for  all  that  is  decided 
is  that  the  territorial  jurisdiction  may  be  designated  by  the 
legislature  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  constitutional  provision  in- 
terdicting the  exercise  of  that  power  by  the  legislative  depart- 
ment. The  boundaries  of  a  county  so  far  at  least  as  concerns 
the  jurisdiction  to  punish  for  crime  may  extend  to  the  middle 
thread  of  a  river  forming  the  boundary  line  between  two  States.^ 
Where  the  place  at  which  a  crime  is  committed  is  not  within 
a  State  but  is  within  the  United  States  the  jurisdiction  is  in 
the  Federal  courts.-^  In  civil  proceedings,  as  is  evident  from 
what  has  been  said  and  the  authorities  to  which  reference  has 
been  made,  the  jurisdiction  considered  upon  its  territorial  side 
is,  to  a  great  degree,  determined  by  locality  of  the  property  in 
controvers}',  but  as  respects  personal  property  the  rule  is  es- 
sentially different  from  that  which  prevails  where  the  subject 
of  the  dispute  is  land,  for  actions  regarding  personal  property 
are,  as  a  rule,  not  local  but  transitory. 

§  253.    Transitory  actions. — An  action  is  usually  regarded 

ley  V.  State,  24  Ohio  St.  166,  S.  C.  15  » Cook  v.  United  States,   138  U.  S. 

Am.  R.  604;    Hutchinson  r.  State,  62  157,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  268.     In  the 

Ind.556;  States;.  McGraw,  87 Mo.  161 ;  case  cited  the  court  quoted  with  ap- 

State  V.  Moore,  26  N.  H.  448,  S.  C.  59  proval  from  the  opinion   in   United 

Am.  Dec.  354.  States  v.  Jackalow,  1  Black,  484,  the 

*  People  V.  Rouse,  15  N.Y.  Supp.  414.  following:  "Crimes  committed  against 

An  action  to  recover  a  penalty  is  re-  the  laws  of  the  United  States  out  of 

garded  as   a  civil   action   and   not  a  the  limits  of  a  State  are  not  local,  but 

criminal  prosecution.  Durham  r. State,  may  be  tried  at  such  place  as  congress 

117  Ind.  477;    United  States  v.   Hos-  shall  designate  by  law,  but  are  local 

kins,oMackey  (D.C.),478;  1  Bishop  if  committed  within  the  State.     They 

Crim.  Law,  §  956.  must  then  be  tried  in  the  district  in 

"Dugani'.  State,  125  Ind.  130,  S.  C.  which  the  offense  was   committed." 

9  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  321 ;  Welsh  v.  State,  See,  also,  United  States  r.  Dawson,  15 

126  Ind.  71,  75;    Carlisle  v.  State,  32  How.    (U.  S.)  467;    Jones  r.  United 

Ind.  55.  States,  137  U.  S.  202. 


310 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§253 


as  transitory  v/hen  the  transaction  out  of  which  it  grows  or  the 
occurrence  upon  which  it  is  founded  is  one  that  might  have 
taken  phice  anywhere.^  The  nature  of  the  relief,  however,  ex- 
erts an  important  influence  upon  the  character  of  the  suit  or 
action,  for,  as  many  of  the  authorities  cited  in  the  preceding 
paragraph  show,  where  the  right  to  land  or  to  some  interest 
therein  is  the  relief  sought  the  suit  or  action  is  local  and  not 
transitory.  It  is  evident  that  the  class  denominated  transitory 
actions  is  a  very  large  one  inasmuch  as  almost  all  personal  ac- 
tions are  members  of  the  class.  Actions  to  enforce  contracts, 
to  recover  damages  for  a  breach  of  contract,  and  almost  all  ac- 
tions concerning  personal  property  are  transitory. ^  Whether 
an  action  is  local  or  transitory  depends  to  a  very  great  extent 
upon  the  statutes  of  the  different  States.  In  some  of  the  States 
an  action  of  replevin  is  made  a  local  action,  in  others  it  is 
transitory.  In  some  of  the  States  actions  on  official  bonds  are 
made  local,  and  so  are  many  other  actions.  Where  there  is  no 
constitutional  provision  limiting  the  legislative  power,  actions 


'Mostyn  v.  Fabrigas,  1  Cowp.  161, 
S.  C.  1  Smith's  Lead.  Cases,  652.  In 
a  note  to  this  case  Mr.  Smith  says: 
"There  is  a  formal  and  substantial 
distinction  as  to  the  locality  of  trials. 
I  state  them  as  different  things.  The 
substantial  distinction  is  where  the 
proceeding  is  in  rem,  and  where 
the  effect  of  the  judgment  can 
not  be  had  if  it  is  laid  in  a  wrong 
place.  That  is  the  case  of  all  eject- 
ments where  the  possession  is  to  be 
delivered  by  the  sheriff  of  the  county, 
and,  as  trials  in  England  are  in  par- 
ticular counties,  the  officers  are  county 
officers,  therefore  the  judgment  could 
not  have  effect  if  the  action  was  not 
laid  in  the  proper  county." 

^  It  is  not  necessary  to  give  many  of 
the  vast  number  of  cases  upon  this 
subject  and  we  cite  only  a  few  illus- 
trative cases.  Austin  v.  Cameron,  83 
Tex.  .351,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  437 ;  Focke 
V.  Blum,  82  Tex.  436,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R. 


770;  Commercial  Bank  v.  Davidson, 
18  Ore.  57,  S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  517 ;  Carlisle 
V.  Cowan,  85  Tenn.  165,  S.  C.  2  S.  W. 
R.  26;  Newell  v.  Giggey,  13  Colo.  16, 
S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  904 ;  Lipscomb  v.  Tan- 
ner, 31  S.  Car.  49,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  733; 
Flynn  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Abb.  N. 
Cases,  31 ;  Essenwine  v.  Pennsylvania 
Co.,  25  W.  L.  Bull.  396 ;  Nonce  v.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  Co.,  33  Fed.  R.  429;  Hous- 
ton v.Vicksburg,  etc.,  Co.,  39  La.  Ann. 
796,  S.  C.  2  S.  R.  562 ;  Jones  v.  Pember- 
ton,  7  N.  J.  L.  350;  Glen  v.  Hodges, 
9  Johns.  67;  Gardiner  v.  Thomas,  14 
Johns.  134 ;  Shaver  v.  White,  6  Munf . 
110 ;  Lienow  v.  ElHs,  6  Mass.  331  ;  Bir- 
neyy.Haim,2Litt.  (Ky.)  263;  North- 
ern, etc.,  Co.  V.  Scholl,  16  Md.  331; 
Redgrave  v.  Jones,  1  Har.  &  M.  195; 
Williams  v.  Burnett,  6  T.  B.  Monr. 
322;  Lewis  r;.  Morton,  5  T.  B.  Monr. 
1 ;  Livingston  v.  Jefferson,  1  Brock, 
203;  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swearingen, 
33  111.  289. 


§  254  JURISDICTION.  311 

may  be  made  local  or  transitory  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legisla- 
ture. Ill  the  absence  of  statutory  rules  those  of  the  comnion 
law,  so  far  as  applicable  to  our  system  of  procedure,  are  fol- 
lowed, and  in  the  interpretation  of  statutes  the  common  law  is 
influential.  Statutes  respecting  the  venue  are  regarded  as 
remedial,  and  when  intended  to  promote  the  convenience  of 
suitors  and  parties  are  liberally  construed.^ 

§  254.  Domicil(3  as  affecting:  Jurisdic-tioii. — The  domicile  of 
a  person  is  often  an  influential  factor  in  matters  of  jurisdiction. 
The  law  of  the  domicile  of  a  party  governs  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  courts  as  to  him  when  a  party  to  a  suit  or  action  in  a  court 
of  the  State  of  his  domicile.  As  to  such  persons  the  legislature 
may,  within  constitutional  limits,  prescribe  the  mode  of  service 
of  notice  and  the  like.'^  But  where  a  party  is  domiciled  in  an- 
other State  a  different  rule  applies.'^  In  actions  or  suits  in  the 
Federal  courts  the  question  of  domicile  is  often  a  very  import- 
ant one,  for  in  a  large  class  of  cases,  as  is  well  known,  the  juris- 
diction depends  upon  the  fact  that  there  is  a  diversity  of  citi- 
zenship.*    As  we  have  seen,  residence  or  domicile  is  the  basis  of 

^  Quinn  v.  Fidelity  Association,  100  be  as  obligatory  upon  such  citizen  in 

Pa.  St.  382.     See,  generally,   Hoguet  every  other  State  as  it  is  in  the  State 

1).  Wallace,  28  N.  J.  L.  523;  Gutfin  v.  whence  it  is  taken.     Nor  is  it  destruc- 

Leslie,  20  Md.  15 ;  Mitchell  r.  Mitchell,  tive  of  the  extra-territorial  effect  of  a 

1  Gill,  66;    Smith  v.  Moffatt,  1  Barb,  judgment  based  on  constructive  serv- 

65 ;  Simonton  v.  Barrell,  21  Wend.  362 ;  ice  that  the  defendant,  being  a  citizen 

Sprowl    V.   Lawrence,    33    Ala.    674;  of  the  State,  was  temporarily  absent 

Holmes  r.  Carley,  31  X.  Y.  289.  therefrom.     It  is    sufficient  that    he 

'^  Mr.  Freeman  says:  "The  position,  was,  at  the  time,  subject  to  the  laws 

however,  which  seems  to  be  best  sus-  of  the  State  and  to  the  territorial  au- 

tained,  both  by  reason  and  by  prece-  thority  of  the  court."     Freeman  on 

dents,  is,  that  each  State  has  the  au-  Judgments  (4th  ed.),  §570. 

thority  to  pi'ovide  the  means  by  which  ^  AVe  refer,  we  may  say,  by  way  of 

its  own  citizens  may  be  brought  be-  explanation,  to  cases    different   and 

fore  its  courts ;  that  the  courts  of  other  distinct  from  those  in  which  a  resident 

States  have  no  authority  to  disregard  of  one  jurisdiction  comes  into  another, 

the  means  thus  provided  ;  and.  finally,  *  Barber  r.  Barber,  21  How.  (U.  S.) 

that  every    judgment   or  decree   ob-  582;  Prenti-ss  r.  Barton.  1  Brock,  389; 

tained  in  a  State  against  some  of  its  cit-  Catlin  r. Gladding, 4  Mason, 308 ;  Briggs 

izens,  by  virtue  of  a   lawful,  though  r.    French,  2   Sumn.    2.t1  ;    Butler   r. 

constructive  service  of  process,  should  Farnsworth,  4  Wash.C.  C.  lOl ;  Kemna 


;i2 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  254 


jurisdiction  in  divorce  proceedings.  It  is  often  a  controlling 
factor  in  problems  growing  out  of  the  assertion  of  authority  of 
the  courts  of  the  State  wherein  the  party  is  domiciled.  In 
contemplation  of  law  every  person  must  have  a  domicile  some- 
where,^ and,  as  it  is  generally  held,  until  a  domicile  is  else- 
where acquired  a  party  retains  that  of  his  origin. ^  The  words 
"domicile"  and  ''residence"  are  usually  regarded  as  synony- 
mous terms, ^  so  that  when  a  statute  employs  the  term  "resi- 
dence" it  is  ordinarily  understood  as  meaning  the  place  of 
residence.  The  question  of  the  change  of  domicile  is,  in  the 
main,  one  of  fact,  but  with  matters  of  fact  mingle  matters  of 
law,  so  that  the  question  is  ordinarily  one  of  mixed  law  and 
fact.  The  presumption  is  against  a  change  of  domicile,  so  that 
the  party  who  avers  that  there  has  been  a  change  has  the  bur- 
den.^ This  presumption,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  well  enough  to 
suggest,  is  not  a  conclusive  one  but  one  that  may  be  overthrown 
by  evidence.  In  most  of  the  States  actions  of  a  transitory  na- 
ture are  required  to  be  brought  in  the  county  in  which  the  de- 


r.  Brockhaus,  10  Biss.  128 ;  Shelton  v. 
Tiffin,  6  How.  (U.  S.)  163,  165;  In  re 
Walker,  1  Lowell's  Dec.  237 ;  Petri  v. 
Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  142  U.  S.  644 ; 
Shawr.  Quincy,  etc.,  Co.,  145  U.  S.444. 

*The  principle  is  well  settled  that 
for  the  purposes  of  jurisdiction  and 
judicial  administration  a  person  must 
have  a  domicile  somewhei'e,  and  that 
he  can  have  but  one,  and  therefore  a 
domicile  once  existing  continues  until 
another  is  acquired  elsewhere.  Ayer 
V.  Weeks,  65  N.  H.  248,  S.  C.  23  Am. 
St.  R.  37.  See,  also,  Gilman  v.  Gil- 
man,  52  Me.  165,  S.  C.  83  Am.  Dec. 
502;  Cobb  v.  Rice,  130  Mass.  231,  234. 

*  De  Meli  v.  De  Meli,  120  N.  Y.  485, 
S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R.  652;  Allgood  v. 
Williams,  92  Ala.  551,  S.  C.  8  S.  R.  722 ; 
Harvard  College  v.  Gore,  5  Pick.  370; 
Cole  V.  Cheshire,  1  Gray,  441 ;  State  v. 
Steele,  33  La.  Ann.  910 ;  Littlefield  v. 
Brooks,  50  Me.  475 ;  Abington  v.  North 
Bridgewater,  23  Pick.  170.     See,  gen- 


erally, Behrensmeyer  v.  Kreitz,135  111. 
591,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  704 ;  Anderson  v. 
Watt,  138  U.  S.  694;  Briscoe  v.  South- 
ern, etc.,  Co.,  40  Fed.  R.  273. 

3  Langdon  v.  Doud,  6  Allen,  423,  S. 
C.  83  Am.  Dec.  641;  Pells  iJ.  Snell,  130 
111.  379.  See,  generally,  Pullen  v. 
Monk,  82  Me.  412;  Frost  v.  Brisbin, 
19  Wend.  11,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  423; 
Tipton  V.  Tipton,  87  Ky.  243 ;  Larquie 
V.  Wife,  40  La.  Ann.  450;  White  v. 
Tennant,  31  W.  Va.  790,  S.  C.  13  Am. 
St.  R.  896,  903 ;  Shepard  v.  Wright,  113 
N.  Y.  582. 

*  Tanner  v.  King,  11  La.  R.  175; 
Bangs  V.  Brewster,  111  Mass.  382; 
Cross  V.  Everts,  28  Texas,  523.  See, 
generally, Kilburn  v.  Bennett,  3  Metcf . 
199 ;  Anderson  v.  Anderson,42  Vt.  350 ; 
Kirkland  v.  Whately,  4  Allen,  462; 
Abington  v.  North  Bridgewater,  23 
Pick.  170;  Wayne  v.  Greene,  21  Me. 
357. 


§  254  JURISDKTIOV.  313 

feiidant  resides,  or,  where  there  are  several  defendants,  in  the 
county  in  which  some  one  or  more  of  the  defendants  reside.^ 
This  requirement  fixes  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and  if  not 
complied  with  the  proceedings  will  be  erroneous.  But  if  a 
party  is  sued  in  the  wrong  county  he  may  waive  tlie  error  and 
submit  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court;  if  he  does  this,  the  pro- 
ceedings are  valid  and  effective,  for  the  right  to  object  is  a  per- 
sonal one  that  may  be  waived.^  As  a  rule  the  county  is  taken 
as  the  geographical  subdivision  over  which  jurisdiction  is 
given,  but  this,  of  course,  is  a  matter  largely  regulated  by 
statute.  The  limitation  of  jurisdiction  to  the  county  does  not 
apply  to  non-residents,  for  a  non-resident  may  be  sued  in  any 
county  in  which  process  can  be  served  upon  liim.^  In  probate 
matters  tlie  question  of  residence  or  domicile  very  often  be- 
comes one  of  controlling  importance,  and  so  it  docs  in  matters 
of  guardianship  and  the  like.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
where  the  question  as  to  whether  the  action  of  the  court  in 
such  matters  was  taken  in  the  proper  county  is  properly  pre- 
sented in  a  direct  attack  a  proceeding  in  the  wrong  county 
would  be  held  erroneous  and  a  judgment  annulling  it  be  di- 
rected. But  whether  proceedings  in  such  matters  conducted 
in  the  wrong  county  are  or  are  not  void  is  a  question  upon 
which  there  is  a  stiff  and  stubborn  conflict.^     We  can  not  yield 

iCoffman  v.  Brandhoefer,  33  Neb.  Schindler,  17  Ore.  256,  S.  C.  20Pai\  R. 

279,  S.  C.  50  N.W.  R.  6 ;  Gandy  v.  Jolly  326. 

(Neb.),  52  N.  W.  R.  376 ;  Knott  v.  Du-  *  Betzoldt  v.  American  Ins.  Co.,  47 

buque,  etc.,  Co.  (Iowa),  51  N.  W.  R.  Fed.  R.  705;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mc- 

57;  Smith!'.  Smith,  88  Cal.  572,  S.  C.  Bride,    141   U.    S.    127;    Donnelly   v. 

26  Pac.  R.  356;   Collins  v.  Bown,  45  Woolsey,  59  Hun,  618;  McLemore  r. 

Minn.  186,  S.  C.  47  N.AV.  R.  719 ;  Cob-  Scales,  68  Miss.  47,  S.  C.  8  S.  R.  844. 

bey  v.  Wright  (Neb.),  45  N.W.  R.  460;  '  Bryant  r.  McClure,  44  Mo.  App. 

Hilliard  v.  Wilson,  76  Texas,  180,  S.  553;  Bohart  v.  Republic,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

C.  13  S.  W.  R.  25;  Rankin  v.  Roths-  Kan.  94,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  180;  Singleton 

child,  78  Mich.  10,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  v.  O'Blenis,  125  Ind.  151,  S.  C.  25  N.  E. 

1077;  Schloss  v.  Joslyn,  61  Mich.  267,  R.  154;    Rice  v.  Brown,  81  Me.  oS,  S. 

S.  C.  28  N.  W.  R.  96;  Bruil  v.  North-  C.  16  Atl.  R.  334. 

western,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Wis.  430,  S.  C.  *  Atlirming  that    such   proceedings 

39  N.W.  R.  529;  Caswell  v.  Bunch,  77  are  not  void  are  the  cases  of  Bardift 

Ga.  504;    Carlisle  r.  Cowan,  85  Tenn.  v.  Treece,  77  Ala.  528,  531 ;    Coltart  r. 

165,  S.  C.  2  S.  W.  R.  26 ;    Dunham  v.  Allen,  40  Ala.  155 ;  Irwin  v.  Scriber,  18 


!14 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  254 


to  the  reasoning  of  the  courts  which  declare  such  proceedings 
to  be  nullities  which  no  one  is  bound  to  respect,  for  we  are  per- 
suaded that  the  reasoning  is  from  false  premises.  The  assump- 
tion upon  which  the  entire  reasoning  is  founded  is  an  illicit 
one.  Whether  the  deceased  person  at  his  death  resided  in  the 
county  is  a  jurisdictional  fact  to  be  determined  by  the  court 
having  authority  over  the  general  class  of  cases,  and,  although 
such  a  decision  mav  be  erroneous,  it  is  not  void.      Such  a  case 


Cal.  499 ;  Griffith's  Estate,  84  Cal.  107, 
S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  528 ;  Corrigan  v.  Jones, 
14  Col.311,  S.C.  23  Pac.  R.  913 ;  Thomas 
V.  Morrisett,  76  Ga.  384;  Tant  v.  Wig- 
fall,  65  Ga.  412;  Bostwick  v.  Skinner, 
80  111.   147;    Wight  v.  Wallbaum,  39 
111.  554 ;    Succession  of  Gorrisson,  15 
La.  Ann.  27;  Matter  of  Estate  of  Al- 
temus,  32  La.  Ann.  364,  368;  Duson  v. 
Dupre,  32  La.  Ann.  896;    Raborg  v. 
Hammond,  2  Harr.  &  G.  42,  49 ;  John- 
son V.  Beazley,  65  Mo.  250,  S.  C.  27 
Am.  R.  276;    Dequindre  •!;.  Williams, 
31  Ind.  444;    Bumstead  v.   Read,  31 
Barb.   661;     Bolton   v.    Brewster,   32 
Barb.   389;    Monell  v.   Dennison,    17 
How.   Pr.   422;    Lewis  v.   Button,   8 
How.  Pr.  99;    Field  v.  McYickar,  9 
Johns.  130;  Williams  v.  Harrington, 
11  Ired.  616;  Rollins  v.  Henry,  84  N. 
Car.   569;    Walker  v.   Goldsmith,  14 
Ore.  125,  S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  537;    East 
Tenn.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mahoney,  89  Tenn. 
311,   S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  652;    Eller  i). 
Richardson,  89  Tenn.  575,  S.  C.  15  S. 
W.    R.   650;    Burdett    v.   Silsbee,    15 
Texas,  604 ;    Murchison  v.  White,  54 
Texas,    78;     Giddings    v.    Steele,   28 
Texas,  732,  S.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  336,  341 ; 
Driggs  V.  Abbott,  27  Vt.  580,  S.  C.  65 
Am.  Dec.  214;    Abbott  v.  Coburn,  28 
Vt.  663,  S.  C.  67  Am.  Dec.  735 ;  Clapp 
V.  Beardsley,  1  Vt.  151 ;  Fisher  v.  Bas- 
sett,  9  Leigh,  119,  S.  C.  33  Am.  Dec. 
227 ;  Andrews  v.  Avory,  14  Gratt.  229, 
vS.  C.  73  Am.  Dec.  355;  Doe  v.  Lither- 
berry,  4  McLean,  442;  Holmes  v.  Ore- 


gon, etc.,  Co.,  9  Fed.  R.  229.     Assert- 
ing that  such  proceedings  are  void  if 
conducted  in  the  wrong  county,  are 
the  cases  of  Sears  v.  Terry,  26  Conn. 
273 ;  Olmstead's  Appeal,  43  Conn.  110 ; 
First  National   Bank  v.    Balcom,   35 
Conn.  351 ;  Culver's  Appeal,  48  Conn. 
165;    Boyd  v.  Glass,  34  Ga.  253,  S.  C. 
89  Am.  Dec.  252;  Lessee  of  Griffith  v. 
Wright,  18  Ga.  173 ;  Pawling  v.  Speed, 
5  T.  B.  Monr.580 ;  Burnett  v.  Meadows, 
7  B.  Monr.  277,  S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  517; 
Miller  v.  Swan,  91  Ky.  36,  S.  C.  14  S.W. 
R.  964;  Collins  v.  Powell  (Ky.),  19  S. 
AV.  R.  578;  Succession  of  Williamson, 
3  La.  Ann.  261 ;  Clemens  v.  Comfort, 
26  La.  Ann.  269;  Moore  v.  Philbrick, 
32  Me.  102,  S.C.  52  Am.  Dec.642 ;  Beck- 
ett V.  Selover,  7  Cal.  215,  S.  C.  68  Am. 
Dec.  237 ;    Cutts  v.  Haskins,  9  Mass. 
543 ;  Holyoke  w.  Haskins,  5  Pick.  20,  S. 
C.  16  Am.  Dec.  372;  Strouse  v.  Dren- 
nan,  41  Mo.  289 ;  Brooks  v.  Duckworth, 
59  Mo.  48;  Lucy  v.  Williams,  27  Mo. 
280;  Duke  v.  State,  57  Miss.  229;  Bol- 
ton V.  Jacks,  29  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  166; 
Johnson  v.  Corpenning,  4  Ired.  Eq. 
216,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  106;  People's 
Bank  ». Wilcox,  15  R.  I.  258 ;  Thornton 
V.  Baker,  15  R.  I.  553,  S.  C.  10  Atl.  R. 
617 ;  Munson  v.  Newson,  9  Texas,  109 ; 
Paul  V.  Wilhs.  69  Texas,  261,  S.  C.  7  S. 
W.  R.  357;    Reynolds  v.  Schniidt,  20 
Wis.  374,  .380 ;  Thompson  v.  Whitman, 
18  Wall.  457;   Nettleton  v.   Mosier,  3 
Fe<l.  R.  387;  Drexel  v.  Berney,  122  U. 
S.  241. 


§255 


JURISDICTION, 


315 


is  a  member  of  the  general  class  over  which  the  court  has  ju- 
risdiction, and  tlie  decision  that  jurisdiction  exists  in  the  par- 
ticular instance  can  not  be  void  although  it  may  be  erroneous. 
The  decisions  to  wliich  we  have  referred  .show  that  the  later 
cases,  and,  as  we  think,  the  better  reasoned  cases,  take  a  dif- 
ferent view  from  that  asserted  in  the  earlier  cases. ^ 

§  255.   Presumption  of  Jurisdiction — Superior  Courts. — It 

has  long  been  established  law  that  a  court  of  general  superior 
jurisdiction  is  presumed  to  be  competent  to  give  the  judgment 
it  pronounces.^     It  is  a  familiar  saying  that  "nothing  shall  Ije 


'  It  is  probably  true  that  to  some  ex- 
tent the  decision  in  Drexel  v.  Berney, 
122  U.  S.  241,  opposes  the  general  doc- 
trine of  the  text,  but  we  do  not  think 
the  decision  in  that  case  can  be  re- 
garded as  holding  that  where  it  is  ad- 
judicated that  a  person  is  a  resident 
of  a  county  of  the  State  in  which  the 
proceeding  is  conducted  the  adjudica- 
tion may  be  successfully  assailed  col- 
laterally. If  it  can  be,  then,  it  is  cer- 
tainly in  conflict  with  the  many  cases 
of  which  Commissioners  of  Knox 
County  V.  Aspinwall,  21  How.  (U.  S.) 
539,  is  a  type  wherein  it  is  held  that 
where  a  court  decides  that  jurisdic- 
tional facts  exist  its  decision  is  con- 
clusive. If  given  the  broad  meaning 
sometimes  ascribed  to  it  the  decision 
in  Drexel  v.  Berney  is  in  conflict  with 
the  general  doctrine  declared  in  such 
cases  as  Des  Moines  Navigation  Co.  v. 
Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  123  U.  S.  552 ;  Erwin 
v.  Lowry,  7  How.  (U.  S.)  172;  Mat- 
tocks V.  Baker,  2  Fed.  R.  455 ;  Skinner 
T.  Moore,  2  Dev.  &  Batt.  Law,  138,  S. 
C.  30  Am.  Dec.  155.  There  is,  possi- 
bly, some  reason  for  discriminating 
between  cases  where  the  proceedings 
are  had  in  the  proper  State  but  in  the 
wrong  county  and  cases  where  the 
proceedings  are  in  the  wrong  State  or 
nation.     Where  the  proceedings  are 


had  in  the  same  State  and  the  mistake 
is  only  as  to  the  county  there  is  un- 
questionably jurisdiction  of  the  gen- 
eral class  of  cases,  and  the  utmost 
that  can  be  said  is  that  there  was  er- 
ror in  exercising  that  jurisdiction  in 
the  particular  instance,  but  whether 
the  jurisdiction  was  properly  or  im- 
properly exercised  depends  upon  facts 
which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  court  to 
ascertain,  and  having  ascertained  the 
facts,  it  was  its  duty  to  apply  the  law 
to  them,  so  that  the  proceedings  can 
not  be  said  to  be  void. 

2  Galpin  v.  Page,  18  Wall.  350 ;  Black 
V.  Epperson, 40 Texas,  162, 178 ;  Slocum 
V.  Providence,  etc.,  Co.,  10  R.  I.  112; 
Pennington  v.  Gibson,  16  How.(U.  S.) 
65;  Nations  v.  Johnson,  24  How.  (U. 
S.)  195;  Turner  c.  Jenkins,  79  111.  228; 
Hopper  V.  Fisher,  2  Head.  (Tenn.) 
253;  Bass  Foundry  Co.  v.  The  Board, 
115  Ind.  234;  Shewalter  v.  Bergman, 
123  Ind.  155 ;  Kelsey  r.Wyley,  10  Ga. 
371;  Bokeru.  Chapiine,  12  Iowa,  204; 
Huntington  v.  Charlotte,  15  Vt.  46; 
Pope  ('.  Harrison,  16  Lea.  (Tenn.)  82; 
Brownfield  w.Weicht,  9  Ind.  394  ;  Rog- 
ers V.  Burns,  27  Pa.  St.  525 ;  Grignon's 
Lessees  v.  Astor,  2  How.  (IT.  S.)  319, 
340;  Nunn  r.  Sturges,  22  Ark.  389: 
Housh  v.  People,  66  111.  178. 


316  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  25G 

intended  to  be  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  a  superior  court  but 
that  which  specially  appears  to  be  so."^  This  general  pre- 
sumption should,  as  we  believe,  sustain  the  judgment  of  a 
court  of  general  jurisdiction  in  all  classes  of  cases,  but  this 
conclusion  is  probably  not  in  accordance  with  the  weight  of 
autliority,  for  the  majority  of  the  cases  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween special  authority  and  general  jurisdiction.  We  can  per- 
ceive no  reason  for  this  distinction,  and  are  persuaded  that,  on 
principle,  the  cases  which  affirm  that  such  a  distinction  exists 
are  wrong.  If  the  rank  of  the  tribunal  is  such  as  to  entitle  it 
to  the  benefit  of  the  presumption  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
exercise  of  one  power  rather  than  another  should  either  broaden 
or  narrow  the  rule.  The  presumption  is  founded  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  court  will  follow  the  law,  do  its  duty  and  do  it 
properly,  and,  certainly,  the  nature  of  the  power  exercised, 
whether  special  or  general,  can  not  exert  any  influence  upon 
the  question.  We  can  see  no  more  reason  for  asserting  that  in 
rendering  a  judgment  in  an  action  of  assumpsit  the  presump- 
tion is  that  there  was  jurisdiction,  than  there  is  for  so  assert- 
ing where  the  court  appoints  a  receiver  under  statutory  au- 
thority. 

§  256.   Presumption  of  Jurisdiction — Inferior  tribunals. — 

The  rule  is  that  no  presumptions  or  intendments  are  made  in 
favor  of  the  jurisdiction  of  inferior  tribunals.^     Some  of  the 

'  Peacock  v.  Bell,  1    Saunders,  7,3;  ams  t\  Cowles,  95  Mo.  501,  S.  C.6  Am. 

Howard  v.  Gosset,  10  Q.  B.  359 ;   Guil-  St.  R.  74. 

ford  ti.  Love,  49  Texas,  715;    Goar  i\  ^  Hanna  v.   Morrow,   43  Ark.   107;, 

Maranda,   57   Ind.   339;     Holmes    v.  Victor,  etc.,  Co.  v.  The  Justice,  etc., 

Campbell,  12  Minn.  221;    Butchers.  Co.,  18  Nev.  21;  Tompert  v.  Lithgow, 

Bank,  2  Kan.  70;  Reynolds  v.  Stans-  1  Bush.  (Ky.)  176;    Thatchers.  Pow- 

berry,  20  Ohio,  344,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  ell,  6  AVheat.  119 ;    Palmer  v.  Oakley, 

459 ;  Wells  v.  Waterhouse,  22  Me.  131 ;  2  Doug.  433,  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec.  41 ; 

Ely  V.  Tallman,  14  Wis.  28 ;    Potter  v.  Gouldingu.  Clark,34  N.  H.  148 ;  Tucker 

Merchants'  Bank,  28  N.  Y.  641,  656;  v.  Harris,  13  Ga.  1,  S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec. 

Davis  V.  Hudson,  29  Minn.  27 ;    Reed  488 ;  Lowry  v.  Erwin,  6  Rob.  (La.)  192, 

?;.  Vaughan,  15  Mo.  137;  State  v.  Lewis,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  556;  Harvey  v.  Ty- 

22  N.  J.  L.  564;  Adams  v.  Jeffries,  12  ler,  2  Wall.  328;    Dick  v.  Wilson,  10 

Ohio,  253,  S.  C.  40  Am.  Dec.  477 ;  Ad-  Ore.  490 ;  Smith  v.  Fiiiley,  52  Ark.  373 ; 


§  25G 


JURISDICTION. 


117 


courts  declare  that  "nothing  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  an 
inferior  court  except  that  whicli  specially  appears  to  be  so," 
but  this  we  regard  as  an  extravagant  statement  of  the  general 
rule,  for  we  believe  that  if  from  the  whole  record  it  appears 
generally  that  there  is  jurisdiction  the  proceedings  can  not  be 
deemed  void.^  There  is  little  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  gen- 
eral rule  stated  in  the  opening  sentence  of  this  paragraph,  but 
there  is  a  wide  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  what  shall  be  consid- 
ered an  inferior  tribunal.''^  Where  jurisdiction  once  attaches 
the  same  presumptions  attend  the  proceedings  of  a  court  of  in- 
ferior jurisdiction  as  those  wliicli  prevail  in  regard  to  courts  of 
superior  jurisdiction.^     The  proceedings  of  a  court  of  inferior 


Granite  Bank  v.  Treat,  18  Me.  340 ; 
Wight  V.  Warner,  1  Dougl.  (Mich.) 
384;  Spear  v.  Carter,  1  Mich.  19;  Bar- 
rett V.  Crane,  16  Vt.  246;  Ohio,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Schultz,  31  Ind.  150;  Perkins  v. 
Attaway,  14  Ga.  27;  New  Jersey,  etc.. 
Go.  V.  Suydam,  17  N.  J.  L.  25;  Kane 
V.  Desmond,  63  Cal.  464;  Keybers  v. 
McComber,  67  Cal.  395.  See,  gener- 
ally, Mallett  V.  Uncle  Sam,  etc.,  Co., 
1  Nev.  188;  Gallatian  i'.  Cunningham, 
S  Cowen,  361 ;  Rowley  v.  Howard,  23 
Cal.  401;  Gilbert  v.  York,  111  N.  Y. 
544. 

'  Karnes  v.  Alexander,  92  Mo.  660, 
S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R.  518. 

*Ante,  §§  151,  152,  153, 154;  Gamble 
-».  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Ga.  595,  S.  C. 
12  Am.  St.  R.  276;  Pursley  v.  Hayes, 
22  Iowa,  11.  In  AVall  r.  Wall,  123"Pa. 
545,  S.  C.  10  Am.  St.  549,  the  doctrine 
that  judgments  of  inferior  courts  may 
be  collaterally  assailed  is  carried  very 
far,  for  in  that  case  it  was  held  that 
although  the  register  of  wills  acts  as  a 
judicial  officer,  still,  if  he  admits  to 
probate  as  a  will  an  instrument  that 
is  not  a  will,  his  proceedings  are  void. 
As  supporting  this  doctrine  the  court 
cited  Bowlby  v.  Thunder,  105  Pa.  St. 
173.  It  seems  to  us  that  if  there  was 
general  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  the 


decision  that  an  instrument  was  a  will 
when  in  fact  it  was  not  a  will,  did  not 
make  the  proceedings  void  for  want  of 
jurisdiction.  If  the  register  had  de- 
cided correctly  no  one  would  doubt 
that  his  decision  could  not  be  assailed, 
but,  as  the  power  to  decide  is  the 
power  to  decide  right  as  well  as  wrong, 
a  wrong  decision  does  not  make  the 
proceeding  a  mere  nullity. 

^  In  the  case  of  Comstock  v.  Craw- 
ford, 3  Wall.  396,  403,  the  general  doc- 
trine was  thus  stated :  "It  is  well  set- 
tled that  when  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
court  of  limited  and  special  jurisdic- 
tion appears  upon  the  face  of  its  pro- 
ceedings, its  action  can  not  be  attacked 
for  mere  error  or  irregularity.  The 
jurisdiction  appearing,  the  same  pre- 
sumption of  law  arises  that  it  was 
rightfully  exercised  as  that  which  pre- 
vails with  reference  to  the  action  of  a 
court  of  superior  and  general  author- 
ity." Board  v.  Markle,  46  Ind.  96; 
Levy  V.  Furguson,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Ark. 
317,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  284;  Visart  r. 
Bush,  46  Ark.  153;  Chicago,  etc.,  v. 
Chamberlain,  84  111.  333;  State  r. 
Ilinchman,  27  Pa.  St.  479;  Little  v. 
Sinnett,  7  Iowa,  324 ;  Pursley  v.  Hayes, 
22  Iowa,  11 ;  Perrine  v.  Farr,  2  Zab. 
(X.  J.)  356 ;  Bell  i'.  Raymond,  18  Conn. 


318  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  257 

jurisdiction  are  no  more  vulnerable  to  collateral  attacks  than 
are  those  of  the  highest  court  if  it  affirmatively  appears  that  it 
has  rightfully  acquired  jurisdiction  of  the  case.  The  difference, 
in  this  respect,  between  the  two  classes  of  courts  is  as  to  the 
presumption  of  jurisdiction,  not  as  to  the  mode  of  procedure. 

§  257.  Averment  of  jurisdictional  facts. — The  general  rule 
that  everything  is  intended  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
superior  court  renders  it  unnecessary  to  plead  facts  conferring 
jurisdiction  in  cases  brought  in  that  class  of  courts.^  This 
general  doctrine  goes  so  far  as  to  enable  an  action  to  be  main- 
tained upon  a  judgment  of  a  court  of  the  class  designated  with- 
out averring  facts  showing  the  existence  of  jurisdiction  in  the 
tribunal.^  The  presumption  supplies  the  place  of  averments. 
In  some  of  the  probate  cases  it  is  held  that  all  material  facts 
must  be  specifically  averred,  as,  for  instance,  in  petitions  to 
sell  the  real  estate  of  a  decedent,  that  the  personal  property  is 
insufficient  to  pay  debts, ^  but,  other  cases  deny,  and  with  rea- 
son, that  such  averments  are  essential  to  jurisdiction.*  It 
seems  to  us  that  if  there  is  enough  in  the  petition  to  show  that 
the  case  belongs  to  the  class  of  which  the  court  has  jurisdiction 
the  sufficiency  of  the  petition  in  the  particular  instance  is  a 

91;  Shoemaker?'.  Brown, 10  Kan.  383;  ^  gg^mon   i?.    Black,    79    Ala.    507; 

Bernal  v.  Lynch,  36  Cal.  135 ;  Sheldon  Wright  v.  Edwards,  10  Ore.  298 ;  Wil- 

f.  Wright,  5  N.  Y.497;  Reid  v.  Spoon,  bun  v.  McCally,  63  Ala.  436;  Ackley 

66  N.  Car.  415;   Traer  v.  Whitman,  56  v.  Dygert,  33  Barb.  176;    Needham  v. 

Iowa,  443;   Moore  v.  Jeffers,  53  Iowa,  Salt  Lake,  etc.,  7  Utah,  319,  S.  C.  2& 

202.  Pac.  R.  920. 

>  Board  v.   Leggett,   115  Ind.  544;  ^McKecver  v.   Ball,   71   Ind.   398; 

Bass,  etc.,  Works  v.  Board,  115  Ind.  Read  v.  Howe,  39  Iowa,  553;    Todd  v^ 

234;  Kinnaman  v.  Kinnaman,  71  Ind.  Flournoy's  Heirs,  56  Ala.  99,  S.  C.  28 

417;  Brownfleld  v.  Weicht,  9  Ind.  394.  Am.  R.  758;  Kleinecke  v.  Woodward, 

'^  Campe  t'.  Lassen,  67  Cal.  139.   See,  42  Texas,  311;  Gillenwaters  u.  Scott, 

generally,  Ex  parte  Cuddy,  131  IT.  S.  62  Texas,  670,  673;  Nichols  v.  Lee,  10 

280,  S.  C.  9Sup.  Ct.  R.  703;  Mahoney  Mich.  526.     See,  generally,  Coolman 

V.  Middleton,  41  Cal.  41;  Weaver  v.  w.  Fleming,  82  Ind.  117;  May  y.  Board, 

Brown,  87   Ala.   533;    Cavanaugh  v.  30  Fed.  R.  250;  Valderes  v.  Bird,  10 

Smith,  84  Ind.  380;    Mickel  v.  Hicks,  Rob.  (La.)  396;    Camden  v.  Plain,  91 

19  Kan.  578;  Taggarti;.  Muse,  60 Miss.  Mo.  117,  S.  C.  4  S.  W.  R.  86;  Showers 

870;  McAnear  v.  Epperson,  54  Texas,  v.  Robinson,  43  Mich.  502,  S.  C.  5  N. 

220;  Ferguson  v.  Teel,  82  Va.  690.  *  W.  R.  988. 


§  258  JURISDICTION.  319 

question  For  the  'lecision  of  the  court  and  tliat  its  decision,  al- 
though erroneous,  is  not  void.  Where  it  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  jurisdiction  over  a  general  class  of  cases  then  the  facts 
showing  the  particular  case  to  be  a  member  of  the  class  should 
be  allep;ed,  but  we  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
jurisdiction  that  all  the  facts  essential  to  the  existence  of  a 
cause  of  action  are  required  to  be  averred  in  order  to  give  ju- 
risdiction. The  existence  of  a  cause  of  action  and  the  exist- 
ence of  jurisdiction  are  very  different  things.  The  rule  in  the 
Federal  courts  is  that  the  facts  on  which  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  depends  must  appear,  and  hence,  in  order  to  give  juris- 
diction in  cases  where  jurisdiction  depends  upon  citizenship, 
the  diverse  citizenship  must  be  averred.^ 

§  258.  Jmlgnient  by  default — Presumptions. — Where  a  judg- 
ment is  rendered  by  default  in  a  suit  or  action  prosecuted  in  a 
court  of  competent  general  jurisdiction  the  presumption,  in  the 
absence  of  anything  in  the  record,  showing  that  it  was  not 
properly  rendered,  is  in  favor  of  its  validity  where  the  attack 
is  a  collateral  one.'^  Where,  however,  there  is  a  direct  appeal 
it  has  been  held  that  when  the  record  is  silent  there  is  no  pre- 
sumption of  jurisdiction  of  the  person.^  In  collateral  proceed- 
ings the  silence  of  the  record  of  courts  of  general  jurisdiction 
upon  the  subject  of  process  and  its  service  is  not  available  for 
the  overthrow  of  the  judgment.^     But  where  the  record  affirma- 

*  Continental,  etc.,  v.  Rhoads,  119  356;  Hudson  r.  Breeding,  7  Ark.  445  ; 

U.  S.  237,  and  cases  cited.     Amory  v.  EUigood  r.  Cannon,  4  Harr.  170;  Con- 

Amory,  95  U.  S.  186.  noly  v.  Railroad,  29  Ala.  373 ;  Eltzroth 

» Evans  r.  Young,  10  Colo.  316,  S.  C.  3  v.  Voris,  74  Ind.  459 ;  Schissel  r.  Dick- 
Am.  St.  R.  583 ;  Fogg  r.  Gibbs,  8  Baxt.  son,  129  Ind.  139,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  540. 
464.  See,  generally,  Fii'st  National  *  Sims  v.  Gay,  109  Ind.  501 ;  Waltz 
Bank  v.  Geneseo,  etc.,  Co.  (Kan.),  r.  Borroway,  25  Ind.  380;  Dwiggins  r. 
32  Pac.  R.  902.  But,  see,  Farris  v.  Cook,  71  Ind.  579;  Coit  r.  Haven,  30 
Walter,  2  Colo.  App.  450,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  Conn.  190 ;  Lawler  v.  White,  27  Texas, 
R.  231 ;  Seeley  v.  Taylor,  17  Colo.  70,  250;  Swearingen  r.  Gulick,  67  111.  208- 
S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  723.  "  Evans  v.  Young.  10  Colo.  316,  S.  C.  \o 

*Schloss  r.  AVhite,  16  Cal.  65;  Joyce  Pac.  R.  424;  ^lessenger  v.  Kintner,  4 

V.  Joyce,  5  Cal.  449;    State  r.  Wood-  Binn.  97;  Fogg  c.  Gibbs,  8  Baxt.  464; 

lief,  2  Cal.  241 ;    Porter  r.  Herman,  8  Herrick  r.  Butler,  30  Minn.  156.  S.  C. 

Cal.  619;  Winslow  r.  Lambard,  57  Me.  14  N.  \V.  11.  7i»4  ;  Sharp  r.  Rrunnings, 


320 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  258 


tively  shows  that  there  was  no  notice,  or  one  entirely  destitute 
of  force,  jurisdiction  is  shown  not  to  exist,  the  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  action  of  tlie  court  is  overtlirown  and  the  pro- 
ceedings are  void.^  But  mere  defects  or  irregularities  will  not 
render  a  judgment  by  default  vulnerable  to  a  collateral  attack.^ 
Defects  or  irregularities  are  supplied  by  the  presumption  that 
prevails  in  favor  of  the  jurisdiction  of  courts  of  general  juris- 
diction. It  was  held  in  one  case  that  where  the  papers  were 
lost  it  would  be  presumed  that  the  case  was  one  in  which  judg- 
ment by  default  was  authorized.'^  Incomplete  and  defective 
recitals  indicating  that  there  was  an  appearance  will  sustain 
the  presumption.'*     Where  the  record  refers  to  an  agreement 


35  Cal.  528;  McClanahan  v.  West,  100 
Mo.  309;  Williams  ?j.  Haynes,  77Tex. 
283,  S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  752 ;  Wilkerson 
V.  Schoonmaker,  77  Texas,  615,  S.  C. 
19  Am.  St.  R.  803;  Crim  v.  Kessing, 
89  Cal.  478.  See,  generally,  Crank  v. 
Flowers,!  Heisk.  629 ;  Welsii  v.  Childs, 
17  Ohio  St.  319 ;  Sloan  v.  McKinstry,  18 
Pa.  St.  120 ;  Baldridge  v.  Penland,  68 
Texas,  441,  S.  C.  4  S.W.  R.  565 ;  Credit, 
etc.,  V.  Rogers,  10  Neb.  184,  S.  C.  4  N. 
W.  R.  1012:  Woodhouse  v.  Fillbates, 
77  Va.  317;  Ray  v.  Rowley,  1  Hun, 
614;  Slicer  v.  Bank  of  Pittsburgh,  16 
How.  (U.  S.)  570. 

»  Read  v.  French,  28  N.Y.  285 ;  Wat- 
son V.  Miller,  69  Texas,  175,  S.  C.  5  S. 
W.  R.  680;  Great  West,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Woodmas,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  12  Colo.  46, 
S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  771;  McMahon  v. 
Turney,  45  Mo.  App.  103 ;  Renier  v. 
Hurlbut,  81  Wis.  24,  S.  C.  14  Lawy. 
Rep.  Anno.  562;  Dennison  v.  Taylor, 
142  111.  45,  S.  C.  31 N.  E.  R.  148 ;  Joyce 
V.  Joyce,  5  Cal.  449.  See,  generally, 
Hobson  V.  Peake,  44  La.  Ann.  383,  S. 
C.  10  So.  R.  762 ;  Taylor  v.  Ohio  River, 
etc.,  Co.,  35  W.  Va.'328,  S.  C.  13  S.  E. 
R.  1009;  Higginst-.Beckwith,  102  Mo. 
456,  S.  C.  14  S.W.  R.  931 ;  Schmidt  v. 
Thomas,  33  111.  App.  109 ;  Cory  v.  Den- 
nis, 93  Ala.  440,  S.  C.  9  So.  R.  302. 


^  Anderson  v.  Gray,  134  111.  550,  S. 
C.  25  N.  E.  R.  843 ;  McAlpine  v.  Sweet- 
ser,  76  Ind.  78;  Morrow  v.  Weed,  4 
Iowa,  77 ;  Bonsall  v.  Isett,  14  Iowa, 
309 ;  Ballinger  i).  Tarbell,  16  Iowa,  491 ; 
Hendrick  t'. Whittemore,  105  Mass.  23 ; 
Cook  V.  Darling,  18  Pick.  393;  Finne- 
ran  t\  Leonard,  7  Allen,  54;  Wright 
V.  Marsh,  2  Greene  (Iowa),  94;  Paine 
V.  Moreland,  15  Ohio,  435;  Borden  v. 
State,  OEng.  (Ark.)  519;  Sheldon  v. 
Wright,  5  N.Y.  497 ;  Delaney  v.  Gault, 
30  Pa.  St.  63 ;  Callen  v.  EHison,  13  Ohio 
St.  446;  People  v.  Hagar,  52  Cal.  171; 
Bettsv.  Baxter,  58  Miss.  329.  See,  gen- 
erally, Frankfurth  v.  Anderson,  61 
Wis.  107;  Genobles  v.  West,  23  So. 
Car.  154;  McPherson  v.  Beatrice,  12 
Neb.  202 ;  Yentzer  v.  Thayer,  10  Colo. 
63,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  563. 

3  Fogg  V.  Gibbs,  8  Baxt.  464 ;  Her- 
rick  V.  Butler,  30  Minn.  156,  14  N.  W. 
Rep.  794. 

*  Crank  v.  Flowers,  4  Heisk.  629; 
Welsh  V.  Childs,  17  Ohio  St.  319.  See, 
generally,  Sloan  v.  McKinstry,  18  Pa. 
St.  120;  Baldridge  v.  Penland,  68  Tex. 
441,  S.  C.  4  S.  W.  Rep.  565;  Credit 
Foncier  v.  Rogers,  10  Neb.  184,  S.  C.  4 
N.  W.  Rep.  1012;  Woodhouse  v.  Fill- 
bates,  77  Va.  317;  Ray  v.  Rowley,  1 
Hun,  614 ;  Slicer  v.  Bank  of  Pittsburgh, 


^^  258 


JURISDICTION. 


3-21 


but  does  not  set  it  out,  the  presumption  is  that  it  authorized 
the  decree.^  Where  the  liiing  of  an  affidavit  is  a  prerequisite 
to  jurisdiction  tlie  silence  of  the  record  warrants  the  presump- 
tion that  tlie  afBdavit  was  filed. ^  It  has  also  been  held  that 
the  failure  of  the  record  to  show  that  the  pro])er  preliminary 
steps  were  taken  to  authorize  a  judgment  by  confession  did  not 
impair  the  validity  of  the  judgment  inasmuch  as  it  would  be 
presumed  that  all  was  done  that  the  law  required. '"^  It  is  im- 
portant to  bear  in  mind  that  presumptions  available  on  appeal, 
are  not,  by  any  means,  always  available  in  a  collateral  attack. 
The  failure  to  observe  this  distinction  has  led  some  of  the 
courts  into  error  and  caused  them  to  characterize  as  void  that 
which  is  merely  voidable.  In  the  cases  we  have  referred  to 
this  difference  is  illustrated  as  it  is  in  very  many  others.  A 
striking  illustration  of  the  distinction  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing is  supplied  by  the  cases  wherein  the  sufficiency  of  a  com- 
plaint is  in  question.  The  rule  is  that  defects  in  the  statement 
of  the  cause  of  action  will  not  be  sufficient  to  authorize  a  col- 
lateral attack,*  but  that  such  defects,  if  material,  will  avail  on 


16  How.  (U.S.)  570;  Morrow r.Weed, 
4  Iowa,  77. 

'  Collins  V.  Loyal,  56  Ala.  403 ;  Hearn 
V.  State,  62  Ala.  218. 

»  Dean  v.  Thatcher,  3  Vroom.  (N.J.) 
470;  Newcomb  f.  Newcomb,  13  Bush. 
544.  See,  as  to  the  effect  of  defective 
notice,  Paine  v.  Moreland,  15  Ohio, 
435;  Beech  v.  Abbott,  6  Vt.  586;  Glo- 
ver V.  Ilolman,  3  Heisk.  519;  West  r. 
Williamson,  1  Swan,  277;  Moonioy  v. 
Maas,  22  Iowa,  380;  Peck  v.  Strauss, 
33Cal.  678;  Town  of  Lyons  v.  Cool- 
edge,  89  111.  529;  Sacramento  Savings 
Bank  v.  Spencer,  53  Cal.  737;  King- 
man v.  Paulson,  126  Ind.  507;  Lantz 
I'.  Maffatt,  102  Ind.  23. 

'  Caley  r.  Morgan,  114  Ind.  350.  We 
are  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  a  radical  difference  between  a  col- 

21 


lateral  attack  upon  a  judgment  and  a 
direct  attack  by  appeal,  nor  are  we 
unmindful  of  the  fact  that  in  many 
cases  cited  the  decisions  referred  es- 
pecially to  a  collateral  attack.  But 
the  principle  to  which  the  cases  are 
cited  is  that  which  asserts  that  the  si- 
lence of  the  record  does  not  overcome 
the  presumption  that  the  proceedings 
of  the  court  were  regular  and  legal, 
for  that  presumption  exists  even  in 
the  case  of  api)eal  where  there  is  no 
averment  or  no  fact  opposing  it.  There 
must,  indeed,  be  objection,  excej^tion, 
and  a  due  reservation  of  a  ruling  for 
review,  and,  of  course,  a  silent  or  in- 
complete record  can  not  accomplish 
what  only  objections  and  exceptions 
can  accomplish. 
*  Old  V.  Mohler,  122  Ind.  594,  599. 


322  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  259 

appeal  even   where  the  defendant  made  default  in  the  trial 
court.  ^ 

§  259.  Effect  of  assumino;  jurisdiction — Implied  decision  as- 
sertins;  Jurisdiction. — Where  a  court  of  superior  jurisdiction 
assumes  authority  over  a  case  belonging  to  a  class  over  which 
its  jurisdiction  extends,  there  is  an  implied  judgment  that  ju- 
risdiction exists.'^  The  exercise  of  jurisdiction  creates  a  pre- 
sumption that  the  question  of  authority  has  been  considered 
and  a  judgment  pronounced  upon  it.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
there  should  be  any  formal  declaration  or  entry  of  a  decision 
upon  the  subject  of  jurisdiction,  for  a  decision  on  that  subject 
is  a  necessary  inference  from  the  act  of  proceeding  in  the  cause. '^ 
This  is  a  reasonable  and  logical  rule,  and,  notwithstanding  the 
great  weight  of  authority  to  the  contrary,  we  think  it  should 
apply  to  all  courts  having  a  permanent  existence  and  authority 
over  a  general  class  or  classes  of  actions.  It  is  the  presumption, 
even  where  there  is  no  official  character  and  no  sworn  duty  to 
perform,  that  all  acts  are  rightfully  performed,  and  there  is  no 
valid  reason  why  the  presumption  should  not  apply  to  all 
grades  of  courts.     The  contrary  doctrine  rests  upon  the  basal 

1  Abbe  V.  Marr,  14  Cal.  210;  Strock  21  Pac.  R.  283;  McGregor  v.  Morrow, 

V.  Commonwealth,  90  Pa.  St.  272 ;  Col-  40  Kan.  730,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  157.   See, 

lins  V.  Gibbs,  2  Burr.  899.    As  we  have  generally,  Branwell  v.  Penneck,  7  B. 

elsewhere  said,  jurisdiction  does  not  &C.  536;  Bunbury  t).  Fuller,  9  Exch. 

depend  upon  whether  facts  are  well  111 ;  Wells  v.   Brackett,   30   Me.   61 ; 

pleaded,  but  upon  whether  the  facts  Otis  ».  DeBoer,  116  Ind.  531;  Ballard 

stated,  however  incompletely  or  de-  v.  Thomas,  19  Gratt.  14,  20.     See,  also, 

fectively,  are  sufficient  to  show  that  post,  §  260 ;   ante,  §§  183,  184. 
the  particular  case  belongs  to  a  gen-        '  Osborn   v.   Sutton,   108  Ind.   443; 

eral  class  over  which  the  authority  of  Jackson  v.  State,  104  Ind.  516,  S.  C.  3 

that  court  is  extended  by  law.     Pre-  N.  E.  R.  863;  Florentine  v.  Barton,  2 

sumptively   there    is    jurisdiction    of  Wall.  210;    Updegraff  ?>.  Palmer,   107 

every  individual  member  of  the  gen-  Ind.  181;  Landon  v.  Comet,  62  Mich, 

eral  class.  80,  S.  C.  28  N.  W.  R.  788,  793;  Young 

•'  Clary  v.  Hoagland,  6  Cal.  685 ;  State  v.  Wells,  97  Ind.  410 ;  Adams  v.  Har- 

t).Waupaca  County  Bank,  20  Wis.  640;  rington,   114  Ind.  66,71;  Plummer  w. 

Thornton  v.  Baker,  15  R.  I.  553,  S.  C.  Walerville,   32   Me.    566;    Humboldt 

10  Atl.  Rep.  617;   Ney  v.  Swinny,  36  County  v.  Dinsmore,  75  Cal.  604,  S.  C. 

Ind.  454 ;  Doe  v.  Smith,  1  Ind.  451, 457 ;  17  Pac.  R.  710 ;  Wyatt  v.  Steele,  26  Ala. 

English  tJ.Wordman,  40  Kan.  752,  S.  C.  639 ;  Vosler  v.  Brock,  84  Mo.  574,  578. 


§  260  JURISDICTION.  323 

proposition  that  inferior  judicial  officers  are  presumed  to  do 
wrong  instead  of  right,  and  this  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  every 
principle  of  reason  and  logic.  No  matter  what  the  rank  of  a 
court  may  be,  it  necessarily  adjudges  that  it  has  authority  to 
proceed  whenever  it  takes  a  step  in  the  case,  and  it  should  be 
presumed  that  this  decision  was  not  wrongful,  since  to  do  oth- 
erwise is  to  assume  that  the  court  violated  the  law  and  usurped 
authority. 

§  260.  Decision  that  jurisdictional  facts  exist — Conclusive- 
ness of. — Where  there  is  authority  over  a  general  class  of  cases 
and  the  court  is  required  to  ascertain  and  decide  whether  the 
facts  essential  to  jurisdiction  in  the  particular  instance  exist, 
its  decision  can  not  be  collaterally  impeached.^  This  rule  does 
not  mean  that  any  judicial  tribunal,  high  or  low,  can  create 
jurisdiction  for  itself,  for  that  no  court  can  do,  but  it  does 
mean  that  the  court  may  ascertain  and  conclusively  decide  as 
against  a  collateral  attack,  whether  jurisdictional  facts  exist  in 
a  particular  instance  authorizing  it  to  proceed.  The  court  does 
not,  in  doing  this,  create  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject, 
but  it  simply  inquires  and  decides  whether  in  the  particular 
case  such  facts  exist  as  authorize  it  to  proceed  to  judgment. 
If,  for  instance,  a  justice  of  the  peace  has  jurisdiction  of  a  gen- 
eral class  of  misdemeanors  and  it  becomes  necessary  for  him  to 
decide  wdiether  that  jurisdiction  shall  be  exercised  in  a  partic- 
ular instance,   and  his  right  to  exercise  jurisdiction  depends 

'  The  general  rule  to  which  we  refer  vide,  also,  Birdsall  v.  Phillips, 17  Wend, 

was  thus  tersely  stated  in  The  Evans-  464;  Ex  parte  Watkins.  3  Pet.  R.  193; 

ville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Evansville,  15  People  v.  City  of  Rochester,  21  Barb. 

Ind.  395,  421:     "It  is  a  well  settled  656.     See,  also,  Wanzer  ?'.  Rowland, 

principle,  that  where  the  jurisdiction  10  AVis.  8;  Angell  r.  Robbins,  4  R.  I. 

of  an  inferior  court  depends  upon  a  493;  Dyckman  v.  Mayor,  5  N.  Y.  434; 

fact  which  such  court  is  required  to  Agry  i\  Betts,  12  Me.  415;    Lowe  v. 

ascertain  and  settle,  by  its  decision,  Dore,  32  Me.  27;  Waterhouse  v.  Cous- 

such    decision    is   conclusive."    The  ins,  40  Me.  333;  People  v.  Hagar,  52 

court  cited  the  following  cases :  Brit-  Cal.  171 ;  Bonsall  r.  Isett,  14  Iowa,309; 

tain    V.    Kinnaird,  1   Brod.  &    Bing.  Wyatt  v.  Rambo,  29  Ala.  510,  S.  C.  68 

432;  Betts   r.    Bagley,    12   Pick.  572;  Am.  Dec.  89;  Goodwin  r.  Sims,  86  Ala. 

Martin  r.  IMott,   12  AVheat.  19;   Van-  102,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  21. 
derheyden  v.  Young,    11    John.  150; 


J24 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  2G0 


upon  the  existence  of  certain  facts,  his  decision  that  such  facts 
exist  is  conckisive  as  against  a  collateral  attack  in  a  case  where 
there  is  a  complaint,  affidavit  or  the  like,  calling  into  exercise  his 
general  jurisdiction.  The  rule  we  have  stated  is  an  old  one,  and  it 
has  heen  applied  in  a  great  variety  of  cases.  It  has  been  applied  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  cases  where  an  in- 
ferior tribunal  prior  to  issuing  bonds  must  ascertain  whether 
the  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  number  of  persons.^ 
Other  courts  have  in  numerous  instances  applied  the  rule  to 
cases  of  a  similar  character.''^  The  doctrine  has  been  asserted 
and  enforced  in  probate  matters  and  in  cases  of  that  general 
nature. •■'     There  is  a  difference,  and  a  very  important  one,  be- 


^  The  Commissioners  of  Knox  Coun- 
ty V.  Aspinwall,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  539; 
Town  of  Coloma  v.  Eaves,  92  U.  S. 
484;  Commissioners,  etc.,  tJ.Bolles,  94 
U.  S.  104 ;  Venice  v.  Murdock,  92  U.  S. 
494;  Bissell  v.  Jeffersonville,  24  How. 
(U.  S.)  287.  See,  generally,  Bank  v. 
Dandridge,  12  Wheat.  64,  70;  Knox 
County  I'.  Ninth  National  Bank(U.  S.), 
13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  267.  It  seems  to  us  that 
the  general  doctrine  of  the  court  is  as- 
serted in  McNitt  v.  Turner,  16  Wall. 
352;  Simmons  v.  Saul,  138  U.  S.439,  S. 
C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  369.  In  the  case  last 
cited  the  court  said:  "The  following 
authorities  are  strong  in  support  of  the 
general  proposition  under  considera- 
tion :  Thomson  v.  Tolmie,  2  Pet.  157 ; 
Mohr  V.  Manierre,  101  U.  S.  417  ;  Flor- 
entine V.  Barton,  2  Wall.  210;  Thaw 
V.  Ritchie,  136  U.  S.  519." 

"^  Ryan  v.  Varga,  37  Iowa,  78 ;  Koeh- 
ler  V.  Hill,  60  Iowa,  543;  Spauldingr. 
Homestead  Association,  87  Cal.  40; 
Ela  V.  Smith,  5  Gray,  121,  S.  C.  66  Am. 
Dec.  356;  Alexander  t;.  Gill,  130  Ind. 
485,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  525;  Tucker  v. 
Sellers,  130  Ind.  514,  517;  McEneney 
V.  Town  of  Sullivan,  125  Ind.  407,  412 ; 
State  V.  Nelson,  21  Neb.  572,  S.  C.  32 
N.  W.  R.  589;  State  v.  Weatherly,  45 
Mo.  17;  Ely  v.  Board  of  Commission- 


ers, 112  Ind.  361,  S.C.  14N.E.  R.  236; 
City  of  Camden  v.  Mulford,  26  N.  J. 
L.  49,  59;  Martin  v.  Carron,  26  N.  J. 
L.  228,  231;  Ayres  v.  Lawrence,  63 
Barb.  454;  Quinlan  v.  Myers,  29  Ohio 
St.  500 ;  Argo  v.  Barthand,  80  Ind.  63 ; 
Calhoun  v.  Delhi,  etc.,  Co.,  64  How. 
Pr.  291 ;  Town  of  Cherry  Creek  v. 
Becker,  123N.Y.  161;  Henlinew.  Peo- 
ple, 81  111.  269;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Chamberlain,  84  111.  333.  But  see, 
Hovey  v.  Barker,  45  Kan.  699,  S.  C.  26 
Pac.  R.  591 ;  Mulligan  v.  Smith,  59  Cal. 
206 ;  Town  of  Duanesburg  v.  Jenkins, 
40  Barb.  574 ;  Kungle  v.  Fasnacht,  29 
Kan.  559;  Oliphant  ?'.  Atchison  Co., 
18  Kan.  386 ;  Wilson  v.  Town  of  Cane- 
adea,  15  Hun,  218;  Town  of  Mentz  v. 
Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R. 
541. 

3  Porter  v.  Purdy,  29  N.  Y.  106,  S.  C. 
86  Am.  Dec.  283;  Lewis  v.  Dutton,  8 
How.  Pr.  99 ;  Roderigas  v.  East  River, 
etc..  Institution,  76  N.  Y.  316,  S.  C.  32 
Am.  R.  309;  Landford  v.  Dunklin,  71 
Ala.  594;  May  v.  Marks,  74  Ala.  249; 
Clancy  v.  Stephens,  92  Ala.  577,  S.  C. 
9  So.  R.  522 ;  Goodwin  v.  Sims,  86  Ala. 
102,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  21.  See  au- 
thorities cited  in  note  1,  ante  page  165, 
§  183.  See,  generally.  United  States 
V.  Walker,  109  U.  S.  258;  Kellogg  v. 


§261 


JURISDICTION. 


325 


tween  a  direct  attack  and  a  collateral  assault,  for  upon  a  direct 
attack,  made  as  the  law  provides,  all  rulings  and  decisions  may 
be  questioned,  whereas  upon  collateral  attack  the  only  question 
open  to  investigation  is  that  of  jurisdiction,  so  tliat  rulings  as 
to  jurisdictional  facts  may  be  often  questioned  on  appeal,  al- 
though in  collateral  proceedings  not  open  to  investigation. 

§  261.  Recitals  of  jurisdictional  facts  or  matters. — Where  a 
court  has  jurisdiction  of  a  general  class  of  cases,  is  a  permanent 
judicial  tribunal  and  is  authorized  by  law  to  keep  a  record  of 
its  proceedings,  and  that  record  is  always  open  to  the  public, 
recitals  in  the  record  made  by  it  in  a  case  belonging  to  the 
general  class  over  which  it  has  jurisdiction  are  conclusive  as 
against  a  collateral  attack.  We  know  that  there  is  much  con- 
flict upon  the  general  doctrine  which  our  proposition  embodies, 


Johnson,  38  Conn.  269;  Bouldin  v. 
PZwart,  (>3  Mo.  330 ;  Quayle  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  Co.,  63  Mo.  465;  Van  Steenbergli 
V.  Bigelow,  3  Wend.  42;  Cauldwell  v. 
Curry,  93  Ind.  363;  Goodwin  v.  In- 
habitants, 12  Me.  271 ;  Hunter  v.  Hat- 
ton,  4  Gill.  115,  S.  C.  45  Am.  Dec.  117; 
Stevenson  v.  Superior  Court,  62  Cal. 
60,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  465;  Thomas  v. 
People,  107  III.  517,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R. 
458;  Devlin  r.  Commonwealth,  101 
Pa.  St.  273,  S.  C.  47  Am.  R.  710; 
D'Arusment  v.  Jones,  4  Lea,  251,  S.  C. 
40  Am.  R.  12.  The  three  cases  last 
named  were  cases  in  which  letters  of 
administration  were  granted  where 
the  supposed  decedent  was  living, 
and  the  reasoning  to  some  extent 
seems  to  conflict  with  the  statements 
of  the  text.  In  Porter  r.  Purdy,  29  N. 
Y.  106,  it  was  said:  "When,  in  spe- 
cial proceedings  in  courts  or  before 
officers  of  limited  jurisdiction,  they 
are  required  to  ascertain  a  particular 
fact,  or  to  appoint  persons  to  act  in 
such  proceedings,  having  particular 
qualifications  or  occupying  some  pe- 


culiar relation  to  the  parties  or  sub- 
ject, such  acts,  when  done,  are  in  the 
nature  of  adjudications,  which,  if  er- 
roneous, must  be  corrected  by  a  direct 
proceeding  for  that  purpose;  and  if 
not  so  corrected,  the  subsequent  pro- 
ceedings which  rest  upon  them  are 
not  affected,  however  erroneous  such 
adjudications  may  be."  InGrignon's 
Lessee  v.  Astor,  2  How.  (T.  S.)  319, 
where,  bj'  a  law  of  ^Michigan,  the 
county  courts  have  power,  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  to  order  the  sale 
of  the  real  estate  of  a  deceased  person 
for  the  payment  of  debts  and  legacies, 
it  was  held  that  it  was  for  the  court  to 
decide  upon  the  existence  of  the  facts 
which  gave  jurisdiction.  In  Brittain 
V.  Kinnaird,  1  Brod.  ct  Bing.  4.32,  Dal- 
las, Ch.  J.,  said:  "The  magistrate,  it 
is  urged,  could  not  give  himself  juris- 
diction by  finding  that  to  be  a  fact 
which  did  not  exist.  But  he  was 
bound  to  inquire  as  to  the  fact,  and 
when  he  has  inquired  his  conviction 
is  conclusive  of  it." 


326  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  261 

or,  rather,  outlines,  and  that  the  broad  statement  we  have  made 
is  probably  not  in  accordance  with  the  weight  of  authority,  but 
we  believe  that  it  is  sustained  by  principle,  and  is  the  only  just 
doctrine  that  can  be  practically  enforced.  We  do  not  affirm 
that  any  court  can  give  itself  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject 
by  reciting  in  its  record  that  it  has  jurisdiction,  and  our  prop- 
osition is  not  intended  to  convey  any  such  meaning,  nor,  prop- 
erly interpreted,  does  it  do  so.  We  assume  that  it  is  indis- 
pensably requisite  to  the  authority  to  impress  validity  upon 
any  record  that  the  particular  case  should  belong  to  a  class 
over  which  the  court  has  general  jurisdiction,  and  upon  this 
assumption  we  affirm  that  a  record  in  a  particular  case  of  the 
class  "imports  absolute  verity."  We  do  not  mean  to  be  un- 
derstood as  asserting  that  where  the  record  is  contradictory  or 
so  entirely  defective  as  to  be  manifestly  imperfect  and  in- 
complete, its  recitals  are  to  be  taken  as  true,  but  where  the 
record  is  fair,  intelligible  and  clear  it  ought  to  be  so  taken. 
If  a  court  attempts  to  make  a  record  in  a  case  belonging  to  a 
class  over  which  it  has  no  jurisdiction  its  attempt  will  be  abor- 
tive and  the  recitals  utterly  valueless.  If,  for  instance,  a  justice 
of  the  peace  should  assume  to  issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  or  to 
decide  that  a  public  officer  shall  receive  a  salary,  he  could 
make  no  legal  record,  for  over  the  general  class  of  cases  he  has 
no  power.  The  doctrine  declared  in  some  of  the  cases  is,  as 
we  believe,  entirely  correct  if  applied  to  cases  where  there  is 
no  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,^  but  not  correct  where 
there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject.  If  there  is  juris- 
diction of  the  general  subject  there  is  power  to  make  a  record, 
and  a  record  made  under  a  lawful  power  by  a  permanent  ju- 
dicial tribunal  must  be  held  to  state  the  truth  until  the  con- 
trary appears,  and   as  intrinsic  evidence   is  not  competent  to 

'  Starbuck  v.  Murray,  o  Wend.  148,  S.  Am.  Dec.  728 ;  Smith  v.  Tupper,  4  Sm. 

C.  21  Am.  Dec.  172;  Putnam  v.  Man,  &  Mar.  261,  S.  C.  43  Am.  Dec.  483; 

3  Wend.  202,  S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec.  686;  Mastin  v.  Gray,  19  Kan.  458,  S.  C.  27 

Noyes  v.  Butler,  6  Barb.  613.    As  bear-  Am.  Rep.  149.     In  Ferguson  v.  Craw- 

ing  upon  this  phase  of  the  general  sub-  ford,  70  N.  Y.  253,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R. 

ject,  reference  may  be  made  to  Fitz-  589,  will  be  found  an  exhaustive  re- 

hugh  V.  Custer,  4  Texas,  391,  S.  C.  51  view  of  the  cases. 


§261 


JURISDICTION. 


327 


sustain  a  collateral  attack  it  is  not  legally  possible  to  treat 
the  recitals  of  the  record  of  such  a  court  as  untrue.  The  au- 
thorities support  the  doctrine  we  are  endeavoring  to  maintain 
so  far  as  courts  of  general  superior  jurisdiction  are  concerned, 
at  least  so  far  as  domestic  judgments  are  involved,  but  deny- 
that  it  applies  to  what  are  termed  "courts  of  inferior  limited 
jurisdiction,"  so  that,  after  all,  the  principal  contest  falls  on 
the  question  of  the  character  or  rank  of  the  tribunal  rather 
than  on  the  general  effect  of  record  recitals  made  by  judicial 
tribunals.  Silence  of  the  record  as  to  jurisdictional  facts  does 
not  authorize  any  inference  or  intendment  against  the  proceed- 
ings,' and  certainly,  where  there  is  a  recital  that  the  jurisdic- 
tional facts  do  exist  there  can  be  nothing  upon  which  a  collat- 
eral attack  can  be  founded.  The  whole  record  is  to  be  inspect- 
ed, and  if  upon  inspection  it  affirmatively  and  clearly  appears 
that  the  recitals  showing  jurisdiction  are  untrue  the  collateral 
attack,   other   necessary  factors   being  present,    may   prevail.'-^ 


*  In  Deqiiindre  v.  Williams,  31  Ind. 
444,  the  court  said:  "It  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  a  court  of  superior  juris- 
diction may  so  make  a  record  in  a  case 
where  it  has  no  jurisdiction  that  the 
validity  of  the  judgment  can  not  be 
questioned  collaterally."  The  general 
subject  received  very  careful  conside- 
ration in  Coit  v.  Haven,  30  Conn.  190, 
S.  C.  79  Am.  Dec.  244,  and  the  reasons 
supporting  the  general  doctrine  were 
well  stated.  The  cases  upon  the  gen- 
eral subject  are  very  numerous ;  among 
them  are,  Lessee  of  Fowler  r.  White- 
man,  2  Ohio  St.  270 ;  Callen  r.  Ellison, 
13  Ohio  St.  446,  S.  C.  82  Am.  Dec.  448; 
Harman  v.  Moore,  112  Ind.  221 ;  Segee 
V.  Thomas,  3  Blatchf.  11;  Hotchkiss 
V.  Cutting,  14  Minn.  537;  Penobscott, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Weeks,  52  Me.  450;  Ault- 
man  v.  McLean,  27  Iowa,  129;  East- 
man r.  Waterman,  20  Vt.  494;  Pugh 
1?.  McCue,  80  Va.  475;  Starns  v.  Had- 
Bot,  42  La.  Ann.  366;  People  v.  Har- 


rison, 84  Cal.  607;  Riggs  v.  Collins,  2 
Biss.  268;  Wright  r.  Weisinger,  o  Sm. 
&  M.  210 ;  Delaney  v.  Gault,  30  Pa.  St. 
63;  Swift  V.  Myers,  37  Fed.  R.  37; 
Rigby  V.  Lefevre,  58  Miss.  639;  Riley 
17.  Waugh,  8  Cush.  220 ;  Borden  v.  State, 
11  Ark.  519;  Westerwelt  v.  Lewis,  2 
McLean,  511.  A  distinction  is  made 
by  some  of  the  cases  between  domestic 
and  foreign  judgments.  Ante,  §  258. 
See,  also,  Evans  v.  Young,  10  Colo.  316, 
S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  583;  Luco  v.  Com- 
mercial Bank,  70  Cal.  339;  Benetield 
V.  Albert,  132  111.  665;  Yaple  v.  Titus, 
41  Pa.  St.  195;  Cook  v.  Darling,  IS 
Pick.  393;  Stephenson  v.  Newcomb, 
5  Harr.  (Del.)  150;  Crafts  r.  Dexter, 
8  Ala.  767,  S.  C.  42  Am.  Dec.  666.  See, 
generally.  Cox  v.  Thomas,  9  Gratt. 
323 ;  Finneran  v.  Leonard,  7  Allen,  54, 
S.  C.  83Am.  Dec.6a5;  Blythe  r.  Rich- 
ards, 10  Serg.  c<:  R.  260.  S.  C.  13  Am. 
Dec.  672. 
'*  Adams  v.  Cowles,  95  Mo.  501,  S.  C. 


328  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  261 

We  suppose,  however,  as  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  ju- 
risdiction, that  where  the  court  is  one  of  superior  jurisdiction 
the  record  must  not  only  affirmatively  show  that  none  exists  in 
the  particular  instance  but  must  show  it  so  clearly  and  satis- 
factorily as  to  completely  overthrow  the  inference  that  juris- 
diction existed.^  As  indicated  in  a  note  to  a  preceding  part  of 
this  paragraph  a  distinction  is  made  between  foreign  and  do- 
mestic judgments.^  Upon  the  question  whether  extrinsic  evi- 
dence is  admissible  to  show  that  jurisdiction  did  not  exist  there 
is  a  conflict  of  authority.  We  are  unable  to  perceive  on  what 
principle  such  evidence  is  admissible.  If  jurisdictional  mat- 
ters are  not  to  be  determined  from  the  record  then  it  necessa- 
rily results  that  parol  evidence  is  competent  to  contradict  the 
most  solemn  record  that  can  be  made,  and  a  farther  result  is 
that  the  rule  that  a  judgment  is  only  voidable,  never  void, 
where  the  thing  relied  upon  as  impairing  its  validity  is  not  ap- 
parent from  an  inspection  of  the  record  is  completely  over- 
thrown. There  can  not  be  a  division  of  a  judgment;  if  it  is 
conclusive  as  to  one  matter  it  is  so  as  to  all.  A  judgment  af- 
firms that  the  proceedings  from  the  initial  step  in  the  contro- 
versy until  the  last  are  valid  in  every  respect,  and  there  is  as 
little  reason  for  allowing  oral  evidence  against  one  part  of  the 
judgment  as  against  another.  To  affirm  that  oral  evidence  may 
be  given  as  to  jurisdictional  matters  is  to  assert  that  no  judgment 
is  conclusive  and  that  judicial  records  are  of  no  more  value  than 
the  declarations  of  individuals  embodied  in  written  records.  We 
confess  that  we  can  see  no  solid  ground  upon  which  it  can  be 

6  Am.  St.  R.  74;  Crow  v.  Meyersieck,  ing  note,  unmindful  of  this  rule,  con- 

88  Mo.  411 ;  Cloud  v.  Inhabitants,  86  tain  incorrect  statements. 

Mo.  357;    Milner  v.  Shipley,  94  Mo.  '^  Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall. 

T06;  Brown  v.  Woody,  (54   Mo.  547;  457;    Knowles  v.  Gaslight,  etc.,  Co., 

Howard  v.   Thornton,   50    Mo.    291 ;  19  Wall.   58.     The   reasoning  of  the 

Blodgett    V.    Schaffer,    94    Mo.    652;  court  in  the  first  of  the  cases  cited 

Washington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alexandria,  would  perhaps  carry  the  doctrine  far- 

etc,  Co.,  19  Gratt.  592,  S.  C.  100  Am.  ther,  but  the  question  for  decision  did 

Dec.  710;  Aspinwall  v.  Sabin,  22  Neb.  not  require  an  extension  of  the  doc- 

73,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  258.  trine  beyond  that  stated  in  the  text. 

'  Tallman  v.   Ely,   6  Wis.  244,  259.  It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  the  cases 

Some  of  the  cases  cited  in  the  preced-  cited  with  those  of  Croudson  v.  Leon- 


§261 


JURISDICTION. 


329 


held  that  oral  evidence  may  he  employed  to  contradict  a  judi- 
cial record,  and  we  fully  assent  to  the  views  of  the  authors  and 
judges  who  deny  the  doctrine.'  In  some  of  the  cases  it  is  held 
that  where  a  court  of  general  superior  jurisdiction  exercises  a 
special  statutory  jurisdiction  the  recitals  of  its  record  are  not 
even  prima  facie  sutiicient  to  sustain  jurisdiction.  We  regard 
this  doctrine  as  radically  unsound.  If  the  court  is  one  of  gen- 
eral jurisdiction  its  exercise  of  power  is  presumed  to  he  right- 
ful and  its  decisions  secure  against  collateral  assaults,  no  mat- 
ter what  is  the  nature  of  the  authority  exercised  in  a  particular 
case  helonging  to  a  class  of  which  it  has  general  jurisdiction.^ 


ard,  4  Craneh,  434;  Hudson  v.  Gues- 
tier,  6  Craneh,  281,  284. 

'  Freeman  on  Judgments,  §§  133, 134, 
and  cases  cited ;  Van  Fleet  on  Collat- 
eral Attack,  p.  612;  Morrill  v.  Mor- 
rill, 20  Ore.  96,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  95; 
Ex  parte  Davis  (Ala.),  11  So.  R.  308; 
Martin  v.  Burns,  80  Texas,  676,  S.  C. 
16  S.  W.  R.  1072;  Lyne  v.  Sanford,  82 
Texas,  58,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  847; 
Townsley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fuller(Ark.),  22 
S.  W.  R.  564 ;  Williams  v.  Haynes,  77 
Texas,  283,  S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  752; 
Goodwin  v.  Sims,  86  Ala.  102,  S.  C. 
11  Am.  St.  R.  21 ;  Cully  v.  Shirk,  131 
Ind.  76,  S.  C.  31  Am.  St.  R.  414 ;  Hardy 
V.  Beaty,  84  Texas,  562,  S.  C.  31  Am. 
St.  R.  80.  It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile 
the  broad  doctrine  of  Thompson  v. 
Whitman,  18  Wall.  457,  with  the  gen- 
eral principle  declared  in  such  cases 
as  Lacassagne  r.  Chapuis,  144  U.  S. 
119,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  659. 

» In  Potter  v.  :Merchants'  Bank,  28 
N.  Y.  641,  653,  the  court  said :  "If  re- 
citals are  evidence  of  the  performance 
of  acts  necessary  to  be  done  to  create 
jurisdiction  in  one  court  and  for  one 
purpose,  they  must  be  for  all.  There 
can  not  be  one  rule  of  evidence  for 
the  superior  and  another  for  inferior 
courts."      The   court    cited    Bangs  v. 


Duckenfield,  18  N.  Y.  592 ;  Barber  v. 
Winslow,  12  Wend.  102;  Jenks  v. 
Stebbins,  11  Johns.  224;  Shumway  v. 
Still  well,  4  Cowen,  292;  Borden  v. 
Fitch,  15  Johns.  121 ;  Mills  r.  Duryea, 
and  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  2  Am.  Lead. 
Cases,  597,  603.  Judge  Seldon  also  de- 
livered an  opinion  asserting  the  same 
general  doctrine  and  citing  People  v. 
Nevins,  1  Hill,  154;  Foot  v.  Stevens, 
17  Wend.  483.  If  recitals  have  the 
effect  thus  attributed  to  them  it  must 
be  true,  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  whether 
the  authority  exercised  is  derived  from 
the  common  law  or  from  the  statute, 
can  make  no  difference.  Where  the 
court  is  one  of  superior  general  juris- 
diction, however  it  may  be  as  to  other 
courts,  the  source  of  the  authority  is 
not  of  controlling  importance,  for 
it  is  the  rank  of  the  court  that  gives 
its  recoi'ds  their  force  and  effect. 
This  is  shown  by  the  reasoning  in 
the  old  case  of  Peacock  r.  Bell,  1 
Saund.  73.  The  courts  which  assume 
that  there  is  a  difference  between  stat- 
utory and  common  law  powers  would, 
if  their  doctrine  were  carried  to  its 
logical  conclusion,  dwarf  all  .\merican 
courts  to  special  tribunals,  since  all 
.\inerican  courts  owe  their  jurisdiction 
for  the  most  part  to  statutes. 


330 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  262 


§  262.  Collateral  proceediiio^s. — Our  purpose  does  not  re- 
quire a  very  full  definition  of  the  term  "collateral  proceed- 
ings," nor  any  extended  discussion  of  the  general  subject,  but 
we  have  so  frequently  referred  to  such  proceedings  and  so  often 
used  tlie  term  "collateral  attack,"  that  it  seems  necessary  to 
give  at  least  a  rough  definition  of  the  terms  we  have  employed. 
It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  define  a  collateral  attack  as 
an  attempt  to  avoid  a  judgment  in  an  indirect  mode  and  not  in 
a  proceeding  prescribed  by  law,  instituted  for  the  purpose  of 
vacating,  reversing,  reviewing  or  annulling  the  judgment.^ 
As  a  rule  a  collateral  attack  is  unavailing  where  there  is  juris- 
diction,^ for  where  jurisdiction  exists  the  proceedings  are  not 
void,  although  erroneous.  As  indicated  in  the  preceding  par- 
agraph and  elsewhere,  our  opinion  is  that  whether  a  judgment 
is  or  is  not  void  because  jurisdiction  is  lacking  is  to  be  deter- 
mined from  an  examination  of  the  record,  and  that  extrinsic 
evidence  can  not  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
the  invalidity  of  a  judicial  proceeding.^ 


^  In  a  late  work  this  definition  is 
given:  "A collateral  attack  on  a  judi- 
cial proceeding  is  an  attempt  to  avoid, 
defeat,  or  evade  it,  or  to  deny  its  force 
and  effect  in  some  manner  not  provid- 
ed by  law."  It  is  also  said:  "Any 
proceeding  provided  by  law  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  or  correcting  a 
judgment  is  a  direct  attack  which  will 
be  successful  upon  showing  the  error, 
while  the  attempt  to  do  the  same  thing 
in  any  other  way  is  a  collateral  attack 
which  will  be  successful  only  upon 
showing  a  want  of  power."  Van  Fleet 
Collateral  Attack,  §  3.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  Oregon,  in  Morrill  v.  Morrill, 
20  Ore.  96,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  95,  says 
that  a  collateral  attack  is  "An  attempt 
to  impeach  the  decree  in  a  proceeding 
not  instituted  for  the  express  purpose 
of  annulling,  correcting,  or  modifying 
the  decree  or  enjoining  its  execution." 
See,  also,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of 
Law,  §  147. 


^  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  where 
there  is  some  jurisdiction  but  not  so 
much  as  is  assumed  to  be  exercised, 
the  proceedings  may  be  assailed  col- 
laterally. We  have  elsewhere  consid- 
ered this  question.     Post,  §  266. 

^  To  the  authorities  heretofore  cited 
may  be  added  Newcomb  v.  Newcomb, 
13  Bush.  544,  S.  C.  26  Am.  R.  222; 
Harmon  v.  Moore,  112  Ind.  221.  See, 
also,  Mr.  Freeman's  note  to  Morrill  v. 
Morrill(20  Ore.  95),  23  Am.  St.  R.  103. 
As  we  have  already  said,  the  doctrine 
as  to  foreign  judgments  is  regarded  as 
different  from  that  which  prevails 
where  the  judgment  is  a  domestic  one, 
and  that  the  reasoning  in  Thompson 
«.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  457,  seems  to 
favor  the  competency  of  extrinsic  evi- 
dence in  all  cases.  But  as  we  have 
endeavored  to  show,  sound  reason  is 
against  the  general  doctrine  ;  the  cases 
we  have  cited  and  the  authors  we  have 
referred  to  show  that  as  yet  the  weight 


^  263  JUKISDK'TION.  'S'il 

§  263.    Judicial  procco(Iiii<j:s  are  void,  voidable  and  rojriilar. 

— We  have  already  directed  attention  to  the  confusion  that  has 
arisen  from  confounding  void  proceedings  with  such  proceed- 
ings as  are  only  voidable,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  do  more 
at  this  place  than  refer  to  some  of  the  essential  points  in  which 
such  proceedings  differ.  A  void  judgment  may  be  successfully 
assailed  collaterally,  but  a  voidable  judgment  can  only  be  an- 
nulled or  vacated  in  a  direct  proceeding.  A  voidable  judg- 
ment is  effective  until  vacated  or  reversed,  but  "a  void  judg- 
ment can  not  be  regarded  as  having  any  legal  existence  in  any 
court  for  any  purpose."^  Proceedings  are  regular  when  con- 
ducted in  conformity  to  law,  irregular  when  there  is  a  depart- 
ure from  some  legal  rule  or  principle.^  Where  the  departure 
from  a  rule  is  harmful  to  a  party  and  constitutes  material 
error  the  proceeding  may  be  avoided  in  the  mode  prescribed 
by  law,  but  an  irregularity  does  not  render  a  judgment  void, 
nor,  as  is  implied  in  what  we  have  said,  is  a  judgment  ordi- 
narily rendered  voidable  by  a  mere  irregularity  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. The  English  courts  give  a  different  shade  of  mean- 
ing to  the  word  "irregularity"  from  that  usually  assigned  to 
it  by  the  American  courts,  for  they  generally  employ  it  as  mean- 
ing what  our  courts  would  ordinarily  denominate  "a  material 
error,"  "a  harmful  error,"  or  "a  prejudicial  error. "^ 

of  authority  is  decidedly  against  that  orderly  conducting  of  a  legal  proceed- 

doctrine.  ing,  or  doing  it  at  unseasonable  time  or 

'  Quoted  from  Mr.  Freeman's  note  to  in  an  improper  manner."     Tidd's  Pr. 

Hull  V.  Hull  (35  W.  Va.  155),  29  Am.  512.     Of  course  all  wrong  rulings  are 

St.  R.  800,  810,  and  by  him  attributed  in  a  general  sense  irregular,  no  matter 

to  the  opinion  in  White  v.  Foote,  etc.,  how  important  they  may  be,  but,  as  a 

Co.,  29  W.  Va.  385,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  rule,    an    irregularity   is    not  such   a 

650.     See,  upon  the  general  subject  of  wrong  ruling  as  will  make  a  proceed- 

void  and  voidable  proceedings,  Taylor  ing  voidable,  for  ordinarily  the  term 

-».  Coots,  32  Neb.  30,  S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  "irregularity"  denotes  a  mistake  of 

R.  426;    Cheatham  v.    Whitman,    86  an  immaterial  character. 

Ky.  6U;  Essigv.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239.  Mn  Holmes  r.  Russell,  9Dowl.487; 

See,  also,  Mr.  Freeman's  note  to  Hahn  Coleridge,   J.,   said:     "It  is  dilhcult 

V.  Kelly,  94  Am.  Dec.  762.  sometimes  to  distinguish  between  an 

"  "It  has  been  laid  down  that  an  ir-  irregularity  and  a  nullity,  but  I  tliink 

regularity  is  either  the  omission  to  do  the  safest  rule  to  determine  what  is  an 

something  necessary  for  the  due  and  irivgularity  and  what  is  a  nullity  is  to 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§264 


§  264.  Objections  to  Jurisdiction. — Objections  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  general  subject  may  be  made  at  any  stage  of  the 
proceedings.^  Such  objections  may  be  made  on  appeal,  for 
they  can  not  be  waived.^  This  conclusion  necessarily  results 
from  the  principle  that  consent  can  not  give  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  subject  inasmuch  as  that  can  only  be  given  by  law. 
Waiver  never  operates  in  cases  where  there  is  no  jurisdiction 
of  the  general  subject,  but,  as  indicated  elsewhere,  we  think 
that  where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,  that  is 
of  the  general  class  of  cases,  there  may  be  an  effective  waiver 
of  objections  to  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  subject.^  If,  for 
instance,    a   court  of  general  jurisdiction  has  authority  over 


see  whether  a  party  can  waive  the  ob- 
jection. If  he  can  waive  it,  it  amounts 
to  an  irregularity ;  if  he  can  not  it  is 
a  nullity."  In  our  courts,  and  so  gen- 
erally in  the  English,  a  party  may 
waive  almost  any  objection  except 
such  as  goes  to  the  subject-matter. 
Sage  V.  Railroad  Company,  96  U.  S. 
712;  Jones  r.  Andrews,  10  Wall.  327; 
Pearsons;.  Manufacturing  Co.,  14  Neb. 
211 ;  McCormick  V.  Pennsylvania,  etc., 
Co.,  49  N.Y.  303 ;  Trenholm  v.  Morgan, 
28  So.  Car.  268,  S.  C.  5  S.  E.  R.  721 ; 
Strong t^.Willey,  104 U.  S.  512 ;  Rhodes 
V.  Russell,  32  So.  Car.  585,  S.  C.  10  S. 
E.  R.  828;  Stearns  v.  Wright,  51  N. 
H.  600;  Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 
35  Hun,  575.  See,  Elliott's  Appellate 
Procedure,  Chapter  vi. 

'  New  Orleans  r.  Scalzo,  41  La.  Ann. 
1141  ;  Robinson  v.  Oceanic,  etc.,  Co., 
112  N.  Y.  315;  United  States  v.  Yates, 
6  How.  (U.  S.)  606;  Doctor  v.  Hart- 
man,  74  Ind.  221;  Parker  v.  Morrill, 
106  U.  S.  1 ;  Hart  v.  Burch,  31  111.  App. 
22,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  831 ;  Rohn  v. 
Harris,  31  El.  App.  26,  S.  C.  22  N. 
E.  R.  587 ;  Douglass  v.  Neguelona,  88 
Tenn.  769,  S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  283; 
Hoover  v.  York,  33  La.  Ann.  652; 
Crawford  v.  Carothers,  66  Texas,  199, 


S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  500;  Fitzgerald  v. 
Evans,  53  Texas,  461 ;  United  States 
V.  Phillips,  6  Pet.  76. 

"Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S.  322; 
Hegler  v.  Faulkner,  127  U.  S.  482; 
Boys  V.  Simmons,  72  Ind.  593 ;  Schuyl- 
kill County  V.  Boyer,  125  Pa.  St.  226 
Robertson  v.  Smith,  104  Ind.  79 
Weeden  r.  Richmond,  9  R.  I.  128 
Commissioners  Court  v.  Thompson,  18 
Ala.  694 ;  Damp  v.  Dane,  29  Wis.  419, 
431 ;  Chapman  v.  Barney,  129  U.  S.677 ; 
Fowler  v.  Eddy,  110  Pa.  St.  117,  S.  C. 
1  Atl.R.  789;  Ware  v.  Henderson,  25 
So.  Car.  385 ;  People  v.  Walter,  68  N. 
Y.  403 ;  Willins  v.  Wheeler,  17  How. 
Pr.  93 ;  Tiffany  v.  Gilbert,  4  Barb.  320 ; 
Fitch  V.  Devlin  15  Barb.  47 ;  Hardin 
V.  Trimmier,  30  So.  Car.  391,  S.  C.  9  S. 
E.  R.  342;  Randleman,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Simmons,  97  N.  C.  89,  S.  C.  1  S.  E.  R. 
923;  Murry  v.  Burris,  6  Dak.  170,  S. 
C.  42  N.W.R.  25;  Hall  ?;.Wadsworth, 
30  W.Va.  55,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  29 ;  Keo- 
kuk, etc.,  Co.  V.  Donnell,  77  Iowa,  221, 
S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R.  176 ;  Wilcox  v.  Wil- 
cox, 63  Vt.  137,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  423; 
Laidley  v.  Kline,  21  W.  Va.  21 ;  Bacas 
V.  Smith,  33  La.  Ann.  139. 

'  Ante,  §§  238,  239,  240. 


f  2G4  JURISDICTION.  333 

actions  to  recover  real  estate,  but  the  venue  of  such  actions  is 
ill  tiie  county  where  the  hind  is  situated,  parties  may  by  agree- 
ment submit  a  case  for  trial  to  a  court  sitting  in  a  county  other 
than  that  in  which  the  particular  })arcel  of  land  lies.  Juris- 
diction of  the  person  may  be  waived  by  express  agreement  or 
by  conduct,  and  the  wide  general  rule  is  that  where  a  party 
voluntarily  appears  and  submits  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
it  acquires  authority  over  his  person.  The  rule,  indeed,  is  that 
a  party  who  desires  to  object  to  the  service  of  process  or  the 
like  must  present  his  objections  at  the  earliest  opportunity  or 
his  objection  will  be  deemed  waived.^  Where  a  party  is  sued 
in  the  wrong  county  an  appearance  and  submission  for  trial 
will  waive  his  right  to  object. ^  Some  of  the  courts  hold  that 
where  a  defendant  is  sued  out  of  the  county  of  his  domicile  be- 
fore a  justice  of  the  peace  he  can  not  give  the  justice  jurisdic- 
tion even  by  express  agreement,  because,  as  the  cases  say,  ju- 
risdiction can  not  be  conferred  by  consent,^  but  it  seems  to  us 
that  these  cases  are  not  well  decided.  The  jurisdiction  con- 
ferred by  consent  in  such  cases  as  those  under  immediate  men- 
tion is  not  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,  for  the  agreement 
does  not  bear  upon  the  question  of  the  authority  of  the  justice 

*  See,  pos^,  Process,  Appearance.  For  re  Cooper,  93  N.  Y.  507,  citing  Lee  v. 

a  somewhat  peculiar  application  of  the  Tillotson,  24  AVend.  337;   Embury  v. 

general  rule,  see  Grabbr.  Orth  (Ind.),  Conner,  3  N.  Y.  511.     See,  generally, 

32  N.  E.  R.  711,  and  Quinn  v.  People  Polk  County  v.  Hierb,  37  Iowa,  361. 
(111.),  34  N.  E.  R.  148.     An  appear-        ''Ohio  Southern,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Morey, 

ance,  properly  made,  for  the  purpose  47  Ohio  St.  207,  S.  C.  7  Lawy.  R.  Anno, 

of  presenting  jurisdictional  questions,  701 ;    Harrington  v.  Heath,  15  Ohio, 

is  not  a  waiver  of  the  right  to  object.  483,  487;  Elliott  v.  Lawhead,  43  Ohio 

Foote  V.  Richmond,  42  Cal.  439 ;  Ault-  St.  171 ;  O'Neal  v.  Blessing,  34  Ohio  St. 

man  r.  Steinan,  8  Neb.  109;  Bank  of  33;   Thomas  i'.  Pennrich,  28  Ohio  St. 

theValley  v.  Bank  of  Berkeley  ,3W.Va.  55 ;  Fitzgerald  v.  Cross,  30  Ohio  St.  444. 

386;  Coad  r.  Coad,  41  Wis.  23;  Hark-  See,  generally,  Kitchen  ?'. Williamson, 

ness  r.  Hyde,  98  U.  S.  476;    Tower  v.  4  Wash.  C.  C.  84;  Gracie  v.  Palmer,  8 

:\Ioore,  52  Mo.  118.     The  Court  of  Ap-  Wheat.  699;  Raney  c.  McRea,  14  Ga. 

peals  of  New  York  says:     "It  is  very  589;  Campbell  r. Wilson,  6 Texas,  379; 

well  settled  that  a  party  may  waive  a  State  v.  Judge,  21  La.  Ann.  258. 
statutory   and   even  a   constitutional        *  Chapman  r.  Morgan,  2  G.Greene 

provision  made  for  his  own  benefit,  (Iowa),  374;  Boyerr.  Moore,  42  Iowa, 

and  having  once  done  so  he  can  not  544;  McMeans  ».  Cameron,  51  Iowa, 

afterwards  ask  for  its  protection."    In  691. 


334  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  265 

over  the  general  class  of  cases,  but  goes  to  the  question  of  the 
defendant's  privilege  to  insist  upon  his  right  to  be  sued  in  the 
geographical  subdivision  in  which  he  resides.  We  think  the 
better  reason  is  clearly  with  the  courts  wliich  assert  a  different 
doctrine. 

§  265.  Loss  of  Jurisdiction. — The  general  rule  is  that  if  a 
court  once  rightfully  acquires  jurisdiction  it  continues  until 
the  final  disposition  of  the  controversy  unaffected  by  interven- 
ing errors  or  irregularities.  As  we  have  elsewhere  said,  juris- 
diction extends  beyond  the  judgment  to  the  control  of  process 
and  remains  in  the  court  which  first  acquires  it.^  A  court  may 
exhaust  its  jurisdiction  in  a  particular  instance  by  doing  all 
that  the  law  empowers  it  to  do,  but,  ordinarily,  jurisdiction  is 
not  entirely  exhausted  when  a  judgment  is  entered.  It  is  true 
that  having  rendered  and  recorded  one  final  judgment  it  can 
not  render  another  in  the  same  case,  except,  of  course,  where 
the  first  is  vacated,  or  annulled,  but  the  entry  of  judgment 
does  not  terminate  the  jurisdiction  altogether,  since  there  re- 
mains the  right  and  power  to  control  process.  The  decisions 
which  seem  to  adjudge  that  jurisdiction  is  exhausted  by  the 
giving  and  registering  of  a  judgment,^  must,  as  we  suppose,  be 
understood  as  meaning  no  more  than  that  a  second  final  judg- 
ment can  not  be  rendered  in  the  same  case.  There  may,  it  is 
evident,  be  cases  where  the  giving  of  a  final  judgment  or  the 
making  of  a  final  order  completely  terminates  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  tribunal,  for  there  are  cases  in  which  judgments  are 
self-executing  and  there  is  no  process  to  be  issued.^  Some  of 
the  cases  go  very  far;  thus  it  has  been  held  that  where  an  order 
is  made  appointing  an  administrator,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 

'  Ante,  §§  247,  248.  ceases  to  exist  because  of  some  act  of 

"State  V.  Railroad  Co.,  16  Fla.  708;  the  tribunal,  while  in  the  other  the 

Fossett  V.   McMahan,  74  Texas,  546.  authority  is  taken  up  and  its  existence 

We  think  there  is  a  difference  between  in  the  particular  case  terminated  by 

cases  wherein  jurisdiction  is  lost  and  its  exercise  in  that  case, 
cases  in  which  it  is  exhausted  by  ex-        ^  Elliott's  Appellate  Procedure,   §§ 

ercise.     In  the  one  class  of  cases  ju-  392,  393. 
risdiction  is  taken  away  by  law,  or 


§  265  JURISDICTION.  335 

court  as  to  that  particular  matter  is  at  an  end,^  and,  for  similar 
reasons,  it  has  been  adjudged  that  if  there  be  a  judgment  de- 
claring that  an  estate  has  been  fully  administered  and  the  order 
is  consummated  by  distribution  to  the  heirs  the  jurisdiction  in 
the  specific  matter  is  exhausted.''^  It  is  at  least  questionable 
whether  the  cases  just  referred  to  do  not  carry  the  doctrine  too 
far  in  declaring,  as  they  do,  that  the  proceedings  were  void,  since 
whether  there  was  a  prior  administrator  duly  appointed  would 
seem  to  be  a  question  for  the  court  to  decide  in  the  particular 
instance,  and  if  so  it  is  dillicult  to  perceive  how  its  decision 
could,  at  most,  be  anything  more  than  erroneous.  If,  in  such 
case,  an  issue  had  been  framed  by  the  one  party  affirming  and 
the  other  dcn3'ing  that  there  was  an  administrator  in  office,  a 
wrong  judgment  on  that  issue  would  not,  it  is  quite  certain, 
render  the  appointment  of  a  second  administrator  void.  It  is 
difficult,  in  the  class  of  cases  now  under  discussion,  to  mark 
the  line  between  proceedings  that  are  void  and  those  that  are 
only  voidable,  but,  as  it  seems  to  us,  a  proceeding  is  not  void 
where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class  of  cases,  and 
nothing  more  than  a  wrongful  exercise  of  authority  in  a  par- 
ticular case  either  because  of  a  mistake  of  fact  or  of  law,  for 
the  court  having  authority  over  the  general  class  of  cases  must, 
as  a  general  rule,  have  jurisdiction  to  determine  whether  or 
not  that  authority  has  been  lost  or  exhausted.  The  doctrine 
that  a  court  may  lose  jurisdiction  of  a  cause  so  that  its  pro- 
ceedings become  absolute  nullities  is  carried  to  a  very  great 
length  in  a  case  wherein  it  was  held  that  the  extinguishment  of 

'Griffith  V.   Frazier,   8  Cranch,  9;  Texas,  626;    Croxton  v.  Renner,  103 

Springs  y.  Erwin,6  Ired.  Law,27 ;  Ryno  Ind.  223,  S.  C.  2  N.  E.  R.  601;  Boyd 

V.  Ryno,  27  N.   J.  E.  522.     See  Mr.  v.  Swing,  38  Miss.  182,  196.     As  indi- 

Freeman's  Note  to  Morrill  v.  Morrill,  eating  a  somewhat  different  doctrine 

23  Am.  St.  R.  116.  from  that  declared  in  Fisk  r.  Norvel, 

»  Fiski?.  Norvel,  9  Texas,  13,  S,  C.  58  snj)m,  see  Shephard  v.  Rhodes,  60  111. 

Am.   Dec.  128.     See,  also,  Francis  v.  301;  Kittredge  c.  Folsom,  8  N.  H.  98; 

Hall,  13  Texas,  193;  Giddingsr.  Steele,  Peebles  r. Watts,  9  Dana,  102;  Brongh- 

28  Texas,  750.     Upon  the  general  sub-  ton  v.  Bradley,  34  Ala.  694,  S.  C.  73  Am. 

ject,  see  cases  of  Smith  v.  Woolfolk,  Dec.  474;    Jackson  v.  Reeve,  44  Ark. 

115  U.  S.  143;  Lindsay  r.  Jaffrav,  55  496. 


336 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  205 


the  cause  of  action  terminated  the  proceeding  and  rendered  the 
judgment  void.^  In  our  opinion,  the  doctrine  referred  to  is 
opposed  to  principle  and  authority. ^  The  general  rule,  as  de- 
clared and  enforced  in  many  cases  is,  that  jurisdiction,  onc6 
vested,  continues,  and  that  whether  it  attaches  depends  upon 
the  facts  existing  at  the  time  jurisdiction  is  first  asserted  and  ac- 
quired, not  upon  subsequent  events.^  While  the  general  rule 
is  that  jurisdiction  is  not  lost  because  of  mistakes  of  law  or  of 
fact  made  in  the  progress  of  a  case,  yet,  according  to  some  of 
the  decisions,  when  an  order  is  made  which  denies  a  party  a 
right  to  be  heard  and  the  order  defeats  the  provisions  of  the  or- 
ganic law  giving  a  party  his  day  in  court,  there  is  a  loss  of  juris- 
diction.*   This  doctrine  carefully  applied  may  not  be  wrong,  but 


^  Two  Rivers,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beyer,  74 
Wis.  210,  S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  E.  131,  cit- 
ing In  re  Pierce,  44  Wis.  411 ;  In  re 
Crow,  60  Wis.  349.  We  can  not  dis- 
cover that  the  cases  cited  give  support 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  able  court,  for 
they  belong  to  an  essentially  different 
class  of  cases.  The  court  certainly  had 
jurisdiction  at  the  outstart,  and  an  ex- 
tinguishment of  the  cause  of  action 
could  not,  as  we  believe,  make  the 
proceedings  coram  nonjndice. 

■■*  We  regard  ]\Ir.  Freeman's  criticism 
of  the  case  as  just.  See  17  Am.  St.  R. 
143.  See,  generally,  Bateman  v.  Mil- 
ler, 118  Ind.  345,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  292. 

'  Morgan's  Heirs  i?. Morgan,  2Wheat. 
290;  United  States  r.  Dawson,  15  How. 
(U.  S.)  467;  Culver  v.  Woodruff,  etc., 
Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  392;  Conolly  v. 
Taylor,  2  Pet.  556 ;  Mullen  v.  Torrance, 
9  Wheat.  537;  Ex  parte  Phillips,  57 
Miss.  357 ;  Stuart  v.  Allen,  16  Cal.  473, 
S.  C.  76  Am.  Dec.  551 ;  Gilmer  v.  Grand 
Rapids,  etc.,  16  Fed.  R.  708 ;  Raymond 
V.  Butterworth,  139  Mass.  471 ;  Tapley 
V.  Martin,  116  Mass.  275.  See,  gen- 
erally, Boyer  v.  Berryman,  123  Ind. 
451,  8.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  249;  Stanley  v. 
Barker,  25  Vt.  507;  Spafford  v.  Rich- 


ardson, 13  Vt.  224;  Clarke  ■;;.  Mat- 
hewson,  15  Pet.  164;  Trigg  v.  Con- 
way (Hemp.),  U.  S.7J1  ;Upton^7.  New 
Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  25  N.  J.  E.  372 ;  Bates 
V.  McConnell,  32  Kan.  1,  S.  C.  3  Pac. 
R.  515;  Hooks  v.  Mores,  8  Ired.  Law. 
88,  90;  Egerton  v.  Hart,  8  Vt.  207. 

*  Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  277 ; 
Lindsay  v.  Jaffray,  55  Texas,  626 ;  Un- 
derwood V.  McVeigh,  23  Gratt.  409; 
Henry  v.  Carson,  96  Ind.  412.  See, 
generally.  Dean  v.  Nelson,  10  Wall. 
158;  Lasere  v.  Rochereau,  17  Wall. 
437 ;  Dorr  v.  Rohr,  82  Va.  359,  S.  C.  3 
Am.  St.  R.  106.  See,  generally,  Pen- 
nywit  V.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  600,  S.  C. 
22  Am.  R.  340;  Blackwell  v.  Willard, 
65  N.  C.  555;  Cuyler  v.  Ferrill,  1  Abb. 
(U.  S.)  169;  Van  Epps  v.  Walsh,  1 
Woods,  598;  Dorr  v.  Gibbony,  3 
Hughes,  382.  The  case  of  Windsor  v. 
McVeigh,  is  often  referred  to  as  sus- 
taining the  doctrine  that  judgments 
in  excess  of  the  court's  jurisdiction 
are  void.  In  Henry  v.  Carson,  supra, 
there  was  an  evident  misunderstand- 
ing and  misapplication  of  the  rule  de- 
clared in  Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  Caro- 
lan  V.  Carolan,  4  Ark.  511.  We  have 
considered  Windsor  v.  McVeigh  upon 


■§  205  JURISDICTION.  337 

certainly  it  is  one  to  be  rigidly  limited  and  applie<l  with  scru- 
pulous caution,  for  if  it  be  unduly  extended  there  will  bo  an 
end  to  the  doctrine  that  judgments  import  absolute  verity.  Titles 
will  be  made  insecure  and  litigation  greatly  increased  if  the  (dd 
rule  is  much  restricted,  and  these  are  evils  that  the  old  courts 
and  writers  thought  it  of  the  highest  importance  to  prevent. 
Innovations  upon  the  long  settled  rules,  we,  for  our  part,  look 
upon  as  not  conducive  to  good  results  nor  consistent  with  sound 
principle,  and  we  can  not  but  think  some  of  the  courts  have 
gone  too  far  in  the  direction  of  encouraging  collateral  attacks 
upon  the  ground  of  loss  of  jurisdiction.  The  legislature  may 
take  away  jurisdiction  that  it  has  conferred,  but  jurisdiction 
conferred  by  the  constitution  it  can  not  divest.^  The  general 
rule  is  that  the  jurisdiction  of  courts  having  a  permanent  ex- 
istence, a  record,  and  jurisdiction  of  a  general  class  of  cases 
can  not  be  taken  away  by  the  legislature  except  by  express 
words  or  necessary  implication.^  It  is  very  generally  held  that 
where  jurisdiction  existing  in  one  tribunal  is  also  conferred  upon 
another  tliat  of  the  first  is  not  divested,  but  the  two  tribunals 
become  courts  of  concurrent  jurisdiction.^     The  accepted  doc- 

another  phase  of  the  subject  in  the  v.  Rocdale  Land  Co.,  6  Eng.  L.  &  Eq. 

paragraph  which  follows  and  also  in  241 ;    Gould  v.   Hayes,   19   Ala.  438 ; 

a  preceding  paragraph.  State  r.  Moore,  19  Ala.  514;  State  v. 

'Jones  V.  Smith,  14  Mich.  334;  Cal-  Bell,5  Port.  (Ala.)  365  ;Commonwealth 
lahan  v.  Judd,  23  Wis.  343;  Dillardv.  v.  McClosky,2  Rawle(Pa.),360;  Tack- 
Noel,  2  Ark.  449;  Commonwealth  v.  ett  r.  Vogler,  85  Mo.  480;  Dick's  Ap- 
■Commissioners,  37  Pa.  St.  237 ;  Meyer  peal,  106  Pa.  St.  589;  Fidelity,  etc., 
V.  Kalkmiinn,  6  Cal.  582;  Landers  v.  Co.  v.  Gill,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  737; 
Staten  Island,  etc.,  14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.S.)  Barnawell  r.  Threadgill,  5  Ired.  Eq. 
346;  Connors  v.  Gory,  32  Wis.  518;  86;  Berkowitz  v.  Lester,  121  111.99; 
State  V.  Mace,  5  Md.  337;  State  v.  Taylor  y.  Williams,  78  Va.  422;  Hurth 
Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Md.  193;  Vail  v.  Bower,  30  Ilun,  151;  Jenkins  r. 
V.  Dinning,  44  Mo.  210;  Averell  r.  Crevier,  50  N.  J.  L.  151 ;  /k  re  Creigh- 
Perrott,  74  "SUch.  296,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  ton,  12  Neb.  280;  Catlin  v.  Wheeler, 
R.  929;  ante,  §§  145,  146,  147.  49  Wis.  507. 

» In  re  Twenty-eighth  Street,  102  Pa.        ="  Hays  v.  McNealy,  16  Fla.  409 ;  Bed- 

St.  140 ;  Richards  r.  Dyke,  3  Q.  B.  256 ;  well  v.  Jones,  9  Lea  (Tenn.),  168.    See, 

Reeves  ».  White,  17  Q.  B.995;  Gates  generally,  Thompson  i'.  Morton, 2 Ohio 

V.  Knight,  3  T.  R.  442;  Rex  v.  Mayor  St.  26;  Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  U.  S. 

of  London,  9   B.  &  C.  1;    Common-  130;    James  r.  Belding,  33  Ark.  536; 

wealth  V.  Hudson,  11  Gray,  64 ;  King  Wente  v.  Young,  12  Hun,  220. 
22 


338 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  266 


trine  is  that  where  jurisdiction  is  taken  away  from  a  court  by 
a  statute  containing  no  reserving  clause  saving  pending  suits 
or  actions  jurisdiction  as  to  such  suits  or  actions  is  lost.^  But 
the  destruction  of  jurisdiction  does  not  affect  judgments  ren- 
dered prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  statute  which  destroys  it. 
Jurisdiction  may  be  lost  by  a  transfer  of  the  case  from  one  tri- 
bunal to  another  according  to  law. 

§  266.  Exceeding:  jurisdiction. — Where  a  court  exceeds  its 
jurisdiction  by  entering  a  judgment  beyond  and  outside  of  the 
general  subject  over  which  the  law  gives  it  jurisdiction,  or 
gives  a  judgment  which  it  can  not  possibly  have  power  to  render, 
the  judgment  is  void.^  There  are  cases  which  warrant, — in- 
deed, require, — a  broader  statement  than  that  made  by  us,* 


'  Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3  Dall. 
378;  Merchants  Ins.  Co.  t).  Ritchie,  5 
Wall.  541 ;  Grants.  Grant,  12  So.  Car. 
29,  S.  C.  32  Am.  R.  506;  Phillips  v. 
Hopwood,  10  B.  &  C.  39;  Rex  v.  Jus- 
tices, 3  Burr.  1456 ;  Road  in  Hatfield 
Township,  4  Yeates,  392 ;  Veats?'.  Dan- 
bury, 37  Conn.  412 ;  Gilleland  v.  Schuy- 
ler, 9  Kan.  569;  Church  v.  Rhodes,  6 
How.  Pr.  281 ;  Smith  v.  Arrapahoe,etc., 
4  Colo.  235;  States.  Brookover,  22  W. 
Va.  214;  New  London,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Mass.  386 ;  South 
Carolina  v.  Gaillard,  101  U.  S.  433; 
Commonwealth  v.  Standard  Oil  Co., 
101  Pa.  St.  119;  Holmes  v.  French,  68 
Me.  525 ;  McNulty  v.  Batty,  10  How. 
72;  Assessors u.  Osbornes,  9  Wall.  567; 
United  States  i'.  Tynen,  11  Wall.  88; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Grant,  98  IT.  S. 
398;  Rice  v.  Wright,  46  Miss.  679; 
Lamb  v.  Schottler,  54  Cal.  319;  Wade 
V.  St.  Mary,  etc..  School,  43  Md.  178; 
Saco  f.  Gurney,  34  Me.  14;  Kruse  v. 
Wilson,  79  111.  233;  Carson  v.  Com- 
missioners, 64  N.  C.  566 ;  Hunt  v.  Jen- 
nings, 5  Blackf.  195. 

'  Where  the  court  gives  a  judgment 
"which  it  is  not  possible  for  it  to  give, 


it  goes  beyond  its  authority  over  the 
general  subject,  insomuch  as  it  does 
what  it  has  no  color  of  right  or  sem- 
blance of  power  to  do. 

^The  decision  in  Windsor  v.  Mc- 
Veigh, 93  U.  S.  274,  is  usually  con- 
sidered as  declaring  the  broad  doc- 
trine that  a  judgment  in  excess  of 
jurisdiction- in  the  particular  case  is 
void,  although  the  case  may  be  a 
member  of  a  general  class  of  which 
the  court  has  jurisdiction.  It  is,  how- 
ever, contended  by  some  of  the  au- 
thorities that  the  case  decides  no  more 
than  that  where  the  right  to  appear 
and  be  heard  is  denied  the  judgment 
is  void  because  there  is  not  due  pro- 
cess of  law.  Van  Fleet  Collateral  At- 
tack, §  386.  We  think  the  decision 
under  immediate  mention  is  justly  sub- 
ject to  the  criticism  given  it  by  Mr. 
Freeman,  and  that  on  princii^le  it  can 
not  be  upheld.  Freeman  on  Judg- 
ments, §  118.  The  opinion  is  not  sat- 
isfactory in  its  reasoning,  and  in  our 
opinion  the  dissenting  justices.  Miller, 
Bradley  and  Harlan,  were  right.  But 
the  decision  has  received  approval. 
United  States  v.  Walker,  109  U.  S.  258, 


§  266  JURISDICTION.  339 

but  we  can  not,  as  we  have  elsewhere  indicated,  believe  that 
the  cases  which  so  widely  extend  the  rule  are  well  decided.  It 
seems  to  us  that  so  long  as  the  court  confines  its  decision  to 
the  general  subject  in  a  case  where  it  has  jurisdiction  of  the 
person,  its  judgment,  although  erroneous,  is  not  a  mere  nullity 
which  may  be  everywhere  disregarded.  If  the  court  has,  un- 
der any  circumstances,  authority  to  render  the  judgment  it 
gives,  the  judgment  is  not  absolutely  void,  although  it  may  be 
erroneous.^  As  was  shown  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  the 
general  rule  (and  it  is  one  long  since  establislied  and  one  that 
for  many  years  has  stood  unquestioned)  is  that  jurisdiction 
depends  upon  the  facts  existing  at  the  time  the  suit  or  action 
is  begun,  and  not  upon  subsequent  events,  and  this  being  true, 
it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  perceive  how  a  judgment 
can  be  void  so  long  as  the  court  does  not  travel  outside  of  the 
general  authority  with  which  it  is  entrusted.  In  every  erro- 
neous judgment  there  is  a  departure  from  the  law,  but  not  every 
erroneous  judgment  is  void.  If  it  be  once  assumed  that  a  judg- 
ment is  void  because  the  court  has  not  obeyed  the  law  or  be- 
cause the  court  has  not  kept  within  the  limits  of  the  law  in  the 
particular  instance,  or  has  not  given  the  proper  judgment, 
then  the  line  between  void  and  voidable  proceedings  ceases  io 
exist  and  there  is  no  rule  by  which  courts  can  be  guided,  so 
that,  whether  a  proceeding  is  or  is  not  void  becomes  a  matter 
of  uncertainty  dependent  upon  the  arbitrary  decision  of  a  par- 
ticular tribunal.  We  do  not  question  the  soundness  of  the 
doctrine  that  when  the  court  undertakes  to  render  a  judgment 
in  a  case  where  it  has  no  possible  power  to  render  such  a  judg- 
ment as  it  does  render,  the  judgment  is  void;  on  the  con- 
trary, we  assert  that  this  doctrine  is  perfectly  sound,  but  we 
also  affirm  that  where  there  is  general  jurisdiction  of  the  sub- 

S.  C.  3  Sup.  Ct.  R.  277,  283;  Dorr  f.  language:  "Had  the  court  or  tribunal 

Rohr,  82  Va.  359,  S.  C.3  Am.  St.  R.  106;  power,  under  any  ciroumstanc-es,   to 

Henry  r.  Carson,  96  Ind.  412.     See,  make  the  order  or  perform  the  act? 

Lasere  v.   Rochereau,    17   "Wall.  437;  If  this  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 

Earle  i\  ^IcVeigh,  91  U.  S.  503.  then  its  decision  upon  those  circum- 

*  In  the  case  of  Tallman  v.  Mi-Carty,  stances  becomes  final  and  conclusive." 
11  Wis.  401,  the  court  employed  this 


340  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  266 

ject  the  judgment  is  not  void  although  it  may  not  be  such  as 
the  law  requires,  if  it  is  one  which  the  court  has  authority  to 
render  under  any  circumstances.  If  a  court  of  criminal  juris- 
diction should  render  a  civil  judgment  that  judgment  would, 
of  course,  be  void,  since  it  would  be  entirely  outside  of  and 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal,  but  if  a  court  having 
general  civil  jurisdiction  should  award  damages  and  also  pos- 
session of  land  where  only  damages  were  recoverable  the  judg- 
ment would  not  be  void,  although  it  might  be  radically  erro- 
neous. "When  the  tribunal  is  expressly  or  impliedly  prohibited 
from  making  allowances  or  giving  judgments  in  a  class  of 
cases,  its  judgments  are  void,  since  the  interdiction  deprives  it 
of  jurisdiction  of  the  general  class.  If,  for  instance,  a  court 
has  authority  to  award  compensation  to  individuals  but  is  de- 
nied the  power  to  award  fees  or  salaries  to  public  officers,  its 
judgment  in  awarding  fees  or  salaries  would  be  a  mere  nullity, 
for  such  a  judgment  would  be  outside  of  its  general  jurisdic- 
tion.^ Where  the  record  affirmatively  makes  it  appear  that  the 
particular  judgment  is  one  that  the  court  can  not  render  be- 
cause of  lack  of  power  to  render  it,  there  is  no  violation  of 
principle  in  holding  the  proceedings  void,^  since  the  power 
which  supports  judgments  is  absent,  but  it  is  otherwise  where 
there  is  power  to  render  a  judgment  of  the  same  nature  and 
class  as  that  rendered.  If  the  judgment  is  of  the  same  class 
and  nature  as  that  which  is  proper  in  the  general  class  of  cases 
it  is  not  void,  because  it  is  not  such  a  judgment  as  the  law  re- 

'  Bridges  v.  Clay  County  Supervisors,  71 ;  Seamster  u .  Blackstock,  83  Va.  232, 

57  Miss.  252.     See  Bigelowu.  Forrest,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  262;  Anthony  v. 

9  Wall.  339,  where,  as  said  in  United  Kasey,  83  Va.  338,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R. 

States  V.  Walker,  109  U.  S.  258,  S.  C.  277;  Wade  v.  Hancock,  76  Va.  620. 

3  Sup.  Ct.  R.  277,  it  is  held  that  the  '  In  re  Permstick,  3  Wash.  672,  S.  C. 

court  could  not  do  what  an  act  of  Con-  28  Am.  St.  R.  80,  citing  People  v.  Lis- 

gress  forbids.     This  is  in  accordance  comb,  60  N.  Y.  559,  S.  C.  19  Am.  R. 

with  the  cases  which  adjudge  that  a  211 ;  In  re  Rafferty,  1  Wash.  382.    See, 

court  can  not  adjudge  land  to  be  sold  also,  Cornett  v.  Williams,   20  Wall, 

where  the  statute  forbids  a  sale.     El-  226 ;    Ex  parte  Lange,  18  Wall.  163 ; 

liott  f.  Frakes,  71  Ind.  412;  Pepper  v.  Little  v.   Evans,  41  Kan.  578;    In  re 

Zahnsinger,94Ind.88;  Hutchinson  t;.  Mills,  135  U.  S.  263,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct. 

Lemcke,  107  Ind.  121,  S.  C.  8  N.  E.  R.  R.  762. 


§  266  JURISDICTION.  341 

quires.  If,  in  other  words,  there  is  a  mistake  of  law  or  fact, 
no  matter  how  radical,  the  judgment  is  not  void  if  it  is  one 
which,  under  any  circumstances  reasonably  conceivable,  it  was 
within  the  power  of  the  court  to  render.  Where,  as  we  have 
.suggested  in  the  note  to  the  first  sentence  of  this  paragraph, 
the  court  gives  a  judgment  which  it  can  not  under  any  circum- 
stances have  autliority  to  pronounce,  it,  in  effect,  goes  outside 
of  the  subject  over  which  it  is  given  authority,  since  it  is  not 
invested  with  autliority  to  render  a  judgment  of  an  essentially 
different  kind  or  nature  from  that  which  is  proper  in  the  par- 
ticular case  before  it  for  adjudication.  There  is  substantial 
agreement  upon  the  proposition  that  a  judgment  which  the 
court  can  not  possibly  pronounce  is  void,^  but  as  to  what 
judgments  are  within  the  rule  there  is  a  wide  diversity  of  opin- 
ion. Some  of  the  cases  so  much  extend  the  doctrine  as  to 
practically  break  down  the  partition  between  void  and  voidable 
proceedings.  To  us  it  seems  that  unless  it  is  manifest  from 
an  inspection  of  the  record,  unaided  by  extrinsic  evidence,  that 
the  judgment  is  clearly  and  unmistakably  of  a  kind  or  nature 
which  the  court  could  not  render  under  any  circumstances 
reasonably  conceivable,  the  proceedings  are  not  void  although 
they  may  be  voidable. ^     As  we  have   elsewhere   substantially 

'  Ilouser  V.    McKennon,   60  Tenn.  Schen,  74  N.  C.  607;  7«  ?•<?  Kaminsky, 

287;  Jones  v.  Jones,  3  Dev.  Law.  360;  70  Mich.  653,  S.  C.  38  N.  AV.  R.  659, 

Griswold  v.    Sheldon,   4  N.   Y.   580;  Sennott's  Case,  146  Mass.  489,  S.  C. 

United   States  v.   Labette  County,  7  16  N.  E.  R.  448;    Crandall,  Petition 

Fed.  R.  318;  Lane  v.  Crosby,  42  Me.  of,  34  Wis.  177;  In  re  Graham,  74  Wis. 

327;  Berry  v.  Makepeace,  3  Ind.  154.  450,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  148;  Ex  parte 

'  Gillittv.Truax,  27  Minn.  528 ;  Chaf-  Bond,  9  So.  Car.  80,  S.  C.  30  Am.  R. 

feev.  Hooper,  54  Vt.  513;  Turpin  v.  20;  Miller  v.  Finkle,   1  Park.  Cr.  R. 

Dennis,  139  111.  274,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  374;    In  re  Petty,  22  Kan.  477,  484; 

1065;    Holderman   v.  Thompson,    105  Ex  parte  McGill,  6  Texas  App.  498; 

Ind.  112,  S.  C.  5  N.  E.  R.  175 ;  Delafield  Bernstein  v.  Hobelman,  70  Md.  29,  S. 

V.  Brady,  108  N.  Y.  524;  Swiggert  v.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  374;  Austin  r.  Charles- 

Harber,5I11.364,S.C.39Am.De<;.418;  town,  8  Metcf.  (Mass.)  196,  S.  C.  41 

Rockwell  V.  Jones,  21  111.  279;  Ogden  Am.  Dec.  497.    Holding  the  strict  doc- 

V.  Walters,  12  Kan.  282;  Maloney  v.  trine  are  the  following  cases:  Fithian 

Dewey,  127  111.  395,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  r.   Monks,  43  Mo.  502;    Reynolds  v. 

848 ;  Moore  v.  Jeffers,  53  Iowa,  202,  S.  Stockton,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  211,  S.  C.  3  Am. 

C.  4  N.  W.  R.    1084;  People  v.  Cav-  St.  R.  305;  Atwood  v.  Frost.  51  Mich, 

anagh,   2    Park.    Cr.    R.    650;    In   re  360,  S.  C.  16  N.  W.  R.  685;  Robinson 


342  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  267 

said,  where  a  judgment  is  clearly  and  unmistakably  beyond 
and  outside  of  the  range  or  scope  of  the  issues,  it  may  be  void, 
but  it  is  only  in  rare  and  extreme  cases  that  a  judgment  can  be 
said  to  be  a  nullity,  because  outside  of  the  issues.  If  within 
the  range  of  the  issues  there  is  no  such  excess  of  jurisdiction 
as  will  make  the  proceedings  absolutely  void.^  We  think  this 
general  doctrine  applies  where  parties  waive  formal  pleadings, 
as  well  as  where  formal  pleadings  are  filed. ^ 

§  267.  Estoppel  to  deny  jurisdiction.  —  As  consent  can 
neither  create  a  judicial  tribunal  nor  confer  upon  one  created 
by  law  jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject,  it  is  only  in  rare 
cases  that  a  party  is  estopped  from  denying  that  the  court  has 
jurisdiction  of  the  general  subject  or  from  assailing  the  exist- 
ence of  a  tribunal  not  created  by  law.  As  a  general  rule,  sub- 
ject to  very  few  exceptions,  there  is  always  open  to  the  parties 
the  right  to  object  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  over  the  sub- 
ject-matter.^ A  party  may  appeal  from  a  void  judgment  and 
thus  effectively  remove  its  apparent  force, ^  but  he  is  not  bound 

V.  Redman,  2  Duvall  (Ky.),  82;  Feel-  Sands,  133  Ind.  433,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 

ey's  Case,  12   Cash.  598;    Merkee  v.  722. 

City  of  Rochester,  13  Hun,  157 ;  Ken-  ^  Ante,  §§  238,  264 ;  Wildman  v.  Ri- 

dall  w.  Powers,  4  Metcf.  553;  People  der,  23  Conn.  172;    Western  Union, 

V.  Kelly,  97  N.  Y.  212;  Ex  parte  Page,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  84  Ga.  408,  S.  C.  8 

49  Mo.  291;  Peckham  v.  Tomlinson,  6  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  189;  Roy  v.  Horsley, 

Barb.  253;  Ex  parte  Erdmann,  88  Cal.  6  Ore.  382,  S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  537;  Bent 

579,  S.    C.  26  Pac.   R.  372;  Ex  parte  v.  Graves,  3  McCord,  280,  S.  C.  15  Am. 

Arras,  78  Cal.  304,  S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  683 ;  Dec.  632 ;  Block  v.  Henderson,  82  Ga. 

State  V.  Gray,  37  N.  J.  L.  368;  In  re  23,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  138. 

Price,  6  New  South  Wales,  140;  Ex  *Trullenger  v.  Todd,  5  Oregon,  36; 

parte  Martin,  46  Fed.  R.  482 ;  Corwithe  Smith  v.  Ellendale  Co.,  4  Oregon,  70 ; 

V.  Griffing,  21  Barb.  9.  Coffey  v.  Wilson,  2  Ala.  701 ;    Evans 

'  O'Reillys.  Nicholson,  45  Mo.  160;  v.  Adams,  3  Green  (N.  J.),  373;  People 

Board  of  Supervisors  t).  Mineral  Point,  v.  Ferris,  35  N.  Y.  125;  Cain  v.  Goda, 

etc.,  Co.,  24  Wis.  93 ;  Tolman  v.  Jones,  84  Ind.  209 ;    Brown  v.  Goble,  97  Ind. 

114  111.  147,  154;  Davenport,  etc.,  Co.  86;  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lockridge, 

V.  Schmidt,  15  Iowa,  213;    Baizer  v.  93  Ind.  191;  United  States  v.  Hucka- 

Lasch,  28  Wis.   268.     But  see,  Rey-  bee,   16  Wall.    414.     See,   generally, 

nolds  V.  Stockton,  140  U.  S.  254;  Wat-  Mansfield,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swan,  111  U.  S. 

erman  v.  Lawrence,  19  Cal.  210.  379;  Capron'y.VanNoorden,2Cranch, 

*  Fletcher  v.   Holmes,  25  Ind.  458,  126.     There  is  nothing  illogical  or  in- 

463;    Indianapolis,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.    v.  consistent  in  allowing  au  appeal  from 


§  2G7  jUHiSDiCTiox.  343 

to  do  so,  for  a  suit  or  action  in  a  court  having  no  jurisdiction 
of  the  general  subject  is  itself  a  nullity  and  may  be  so  treated 
everywhere.  The  party  by  whom  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
is  invoked  may  deny  it  unless  he  has  by  his  own  acts  or  con- 
duct created  an  estoppel  precluding  him  from  denying  the 
right  of  the  court  to  exercise  authority,  but  an  estoppel  is  not 
created  by  the  mere  act  of  bringing  suit.^  Where,  however,  a 
plaintiff  has  invoked  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  has  caused 
process  to  issue  and  has  enforced  payment  of  the  judgment  by 
the  sale  of  the  defendant's  property,  he  will  not  be  heard  to 
object  that  the  court  did  not  have  jurisdiction  of  the  subject.^ 
The  same  general  principle  is  enforced  in  the  case  which  holds 
that  one  who  uses  a  judgment  as  a  defense  is  estopped  to  aver 
that  the  court  which  rendered  it  had  no  jurisdiction.^  The 
doctrine  of  estoppel  was  carried  very  far  in  a  case  wherein  it 
was  held  that  a  prosecution  before  a  tribunal  having  no  juris- 
diction barred  a  second  prosecution  where  the  judgment  in  the 
first  was  acquiesced  in  by  the  defendant.^  The  case  to  which 
we  have  just  referred  is  not  entirely  unsupported  by  reason,  for 
it  is  not  very  different,  if  different  at  all  in  principle,  from 
those  cases  which  hold  that  a  party  who  accepts  a  benefit  under 
an  unconstitutional  legislative  enactment  is  estopped  to  ques- 
tion its  validity.^  There  are  many  cases  adjudging  that  a  party 
who  receives  and  retains  money  or  property  under  a  void  sale 

a  void  judgment,  for  the  judgment  be-  440.   Contra,  Wilbur  v.  Abbott,  60  N. 

ing  a  matter  of  record  may  cloud  titles  H.  40. 

or  embarrass  parties,  and  they  have  a        *  McGinnis  v.  State,  9  Humph.  43, 
clear  right  to  cause  condemnation  to  S.  C.  49  Am.  Dec.  697. 
be  pronounced  upon  it.  They  are  not,        *  Daniels  v.  Tearney,  102  U.  S.  415; 
of  course,  bound  to  appeal,  but  they  Vickery  v.  Blair  (Ind.),  32  N.  E.  R.", 
have  a  right  to  appeal,  if  they  so  elect,  880;    Ferguson  v.  Landram,  1  Bush,  i 
and  secure  a  judgment  clearing  the  548;  State  v.  Mitchell,  31  Ohio  St.  592;  j 
record  of  all  clouds  and  shadows.  Embury  v.  Conner,  3  N.  Y.  511,  S.  C. ' 
'Bell   V.    Fludd,   28    So.    Car.   313;  53  Am.  Dec.  325;  Van  Hook  c.  Whit- 
Block  c.  Henderson,  82  Ga.  23,  S.  C.  lock,  26  Wend.  43;    Burlington,  etc., 
14  Am.  St.  R.  138.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  39  Iowa,  2(57;  Perry- 
■^  Reichert  v.  Voss,  78  Ga.  54.  manr.  Greenville,  51  Ala.  507;  Treas- 
'  District  Township  v.  Independent  urer,  etc.,  v.  Martin  (Ohio),  33  N.  E. 
District,  69  Iowa,  88,  S.  C.  28  N.W.  R.  R.  1112 ;  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets, 

p.  422. 


344  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  267 

can  not  successful!}"  prosecute  an  action  to  annul  it,  and  so 
there  are  cases  adjudging  that  void  proceedings  conducted  by 
o-uardians  or  administrators  can  not  be  avoided  by  persons 
who  knowingly  receive  and  retain  benefits  derived  from  such 
proceedings.^  We  think  it  may  be  safely  said  that  an  affirma- 
tion of  a  proceeding  will  estop  a  party  from  assailing  the  juris- 
diction of  the  tribunal  in  which  it  was  conducted  where  the 
facts  are  such  as  to  make  it  against  equity  and  good  conscience 
to  permit  him  to  retreat  from  his  position  and  thereby  entail 
loss  upon  another  who  is  without  fault.  This  doctrine  does 
not,  by  any  means,  imply  that  consent  may  confer  jurisdiction; 
it  simply  asserts  that  the  party  is  concluded  from  making  any 
question  as  to  jurisdiction  and  holds  him  bound  by  his  acts  or 
conduct  subsequent  to  the  judgment  or  decree  of  the  court. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  collision  with  the  general  rule  that  ju- 
risdiction of  the  general  subject  can  not  be  conferred  by  agree- 
ment. The  rule  respecting  jurisdiction  of  the  person  is,  as  we 
have  elsewhere  said,  radically  different  from  that  respecting 
'jurisdiction  of  the  subject.  Jurisdiction  of  the  person  is  al- 
'ways  waived  by  a  failure  to  object  where  an  opportunity  for 
^objecting  is  presented,  so  that  it  is  never  essential  that  facts 
sufficient  to  create  an  estoppel  should  exist.  There  is,  however, 
a  class  of  cases  presenting  a  peculiar  phase  of  the  subject. 
The  class  we  refer  to  is  composed  of  those  cases  in  which  a 
party  alleges  a  cause  of  action  or  defense  in  a  proceeding 
wherein  such  a  cause  of  action  or  defense  could  not  be  adjudi- 
cated had  not  the  party  himself  asked  an   adjudication.     In 

^  Upon  the  general  subject,  see  Den-  111 ;  McLean  v.  Hugarin,  13  John, 
ver,  etc.,  Water  Co.  v.  Middaugh,  12  184;  Duff  v.  Wynkoop,  74  Pa.  St.  300; 
Col.  434,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  234;  Woodstock  Iron  Co.  v.  Fullenwider, 
Hartwell  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Hun,  87  Ala.  584;  Kile  v.  Town  of  Yellow- 
497  ;  Edel  v.  McCone,  31 N.  Y.  S.  Rep.  head,  80  111.  208.  In  Arthur  v.  Isreal, 
653 ;  Lathrop  v.  Doty,  82  Iowa,  272,  S.  15  Colo.  147,  S.  C.  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  381, 
C.  47  N.  W.  R.  1089;  Fries  u.  Fries,  34  a  woman  was  held  estopped  by  her 
111.  App.  142;  Koch  v.  Losch,  31  Neb.  acts  from  denying  the  validity  of  a  di- 
625,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  471 ;  Carrigan  v.  vorce  as  against  the  heirs  of  her  de- 
Drake,  36  So.  Car.  354,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  ceased  husband,  although  it  was  void 
339;  Brownv.Peters,  94  Ala.  459,  S.C.  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 
10  So.  R.  261 ;  Fox  v.  Minor,  32  Cal. 


5  267  JURISDICTION.  345 

such  cases  tliere  is  an  estoppel,  or  at  all  events,  such  an  acqui- 
escence as  cuts  off  a  right  to  object  after  decree  or  judgment.^ 
Much  the  same  in  principle  as  the  class  of  cases  just  referred 
to  are  those  in  wljicii  it  is  held  that  a  party  who  secures  the 
removal  of  a  case  from  a  state  court  to  a  Federal  court  can  not 
after  trial  and  judgment  or  decree  be  heard  to  aver  that  the 
court  to  which  the  case  was  removed  had  no  jurisdiction.'^ 
Cases  of  the  character  of  those  just  referred  to  rest,  as  we  be- 
lieve, upon  the  doctrine  of  estoppel.  There  is  much  more  than 
a  mere  waiver,  there  is  the  representation  of  facts,  and  whether 
the  representation  is  express  or  implied  the  party  may  not 
withdraw  it  after  it  has  been  acted  upon  by  his  adversary  and 
the  court.  We  are  unable  to  perceive  any  reason  why  the 
doctrine  should  not  apply  to  all  cases  where  there  is  a  repre- 
sentation of  such  facts  as  confer  jurisdiction,  since  it  is  the 
facts  as  stated  and  not  the  mere  consent  that  must  control. ■"*  It 
is  bad  enough  to  permit  a  party  who,  by  suing,  asserts  that  the 
court  in  which  he  sues  has  jurisdiction  to  subsequently  deny 
that  jurisdiction  existed,  since  he  vexes  his  adversary  and  puts 


'Lonnsbury  v.   Catron,  8  Neb.  409;  the  defendant,  indeed,  under  the  12th 

Shellenbarger  v.   Biser,  5  Neb.   19-5;  section,  is  something  more  than  con- 

Bollong  V.  Schuyler  National  Bank,  26  sent,  something  more  than  a  waiver  of 

Neb.  281,  S.  C.  3  Lawy.  Rep.  Anno,  objection  to  jurisdiction,  it  is  a  prayer 

142.  The  doctrine  of  the  cases  to  which  for  the  privilege  of  resorting  to  federal 

we   refer  is  essentially  the  same  in  jurisdiction,  and  he  can  not  be  per- 

principle  as  that  asserted  by  the  courts  mitted    afterwards    to    question    it." 

which  hold  that  although  jurisdiction  ]Much  to  the  same  effect  is  the  decision 

is  properly  in  equity,  a  judgment  by  a  in  Sayles  v.  Northwestern  Ins.  Co.,  2 

court  of  law  is  not  void,  although  if  ob-  Curtis,  212. 

jection  had  been  made  the  error  would  ^Railway  Co.  v.   Ramsey,  22  Wall, 

have  been  fatal  on  appeal.     Amis  v.  322;  Thorntons.  Baker,  lo  R.  1.553, 

Myers,  16  How.  (U.  S.)402,  493;  Town  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.   R.  925,  citing  Ela  v. 

ofWentz?;.  Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504,  S.  C.  McConihe,   35   N.  H.    279;    Hines  r. 

15  N.  E.  R.  541  ;  Crissfield  w.  Murdock,  IMullins,  25  Ga.  696 ;  Brown  r.  Haines, 

127  N.Y.  315 ;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  12  Ohio,  1 ;  Mandeville  r.  Mandeville, 

Mackenzie,  74  Md.  36,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  35  Ga.  243;  Harbin   v.   Bell,  54  Ala. 

690.  .4n^f ,  §§  238,  239.    Elliott's  Appel-  389;  Turner  r.  Billagram,  2  Cal.  520; 

late  Procedure,  §  658,  notes  3,  4,  §  766,  Miltimore  v.   Miltimore,    40    Pa.    St. 

notes  1,4.  151;    Potter  r.    Adams  Ex.  et  al.,  24 

'In  Bushnell  r.  Kennedy,  9  "Wall.  Mo.  159;  Lovelady  v.  Davis,  33  Miss. 

387,  the  court  said :     "The  first  act  of  577. 


346  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  267 

him  to  expense,  and  the  rule  which  permits  this  ought  not  to 
be  extended.  There  is  much  reason  for  limiting  it  and  none 
for  extending.  Where  there  are  any  affirmative  acts  asserting 
the  validity  of  the  judgment  the  party  who  by  his  voluntary 
act  secured  it  should  be  held  estopped  to  deny  the  existence  of 
jurisdiction,  even  though  such  acts  might  not  in  ordinary  cases 
constitute  an  estoppel.  The  cases  which  restrict  the  rule  are 
supported  by  reason  and  entitled  to  favor. ^  The  doctrine  of 
the  cases  which  adjudge  that  a  bond  given  in  a  suit  for  injunc- 
tion or  in  attachment  proceedings  and  like  cases  is  void  if 
there  is  no  jurisdiction,^  we  regard  as  unsound,  and  those  that 
assert  the  contrary  as  sound. ^  It  seems  quite  clear  that  one 
who  chooses  his  forum  and  executes  a  bond  in  the  proceedings 
he  voluntarily  institutes,  is  liable  on  that  bond  to  the  extent  of 
the  injury  inflicted  upon  the  person  against  whom  he  proceeds 
without  regard  to  the  question  of  jurisdiction  or  no  jurisdic- 
tion. The  question  of  jurisdiction  may  rightfully  have  some 
influence  upon  the  measure  of  damages,  since  the  extent  of  the 
loss  or  injury  may  depend  upon  how  far  the  case  proceeds,  but 
it  can  have  none  upon  the  question  of  the  right  to  recover  for 
the  loss  actually  suffered  or  the  injury  inflicted.  It  is  but  poor 
comfort  to  one  in  whose  favor  a  plaintiff  executes  a  bond  to  be 
told,  that,  although  the  plaintiff  wrongfully  dragged  you  into 

1  Wells  V.  Scott,  4  Mich.  347 ;  Tower  v.  Kilpatrick,  14  Neb.  347 ;  Robertson 

-».  Lamb,  6  Mich.  3G2;  Randolph  Coun-  •».  Smith,  129  Ind.  422;    Memmler  v. 

ty  V.  Ralls,  18  111.  29;  Montgomery  V.  Roberts,    81   Ga.    659;    Cunningham 

Heilman,  96   Pa.   St.  44;    Bellandes'  t.  Jacobs,  120  Ind.  306;  Fahnestock  «. 

Succession,  42  La.  Ann.  241;  Cross  v.  Gilham,77  111.637;  Bates  t'.AVilliams, 

Levy,  57  Miss.  634.  43  111.  494;  Hanna  v.  McKenzie,  5  B. 

="  Caffrey  u.  Dudgeon,  38  Ind.  512,  S.  Monr.  314,   S.  C.  43   Am.  Dec.  122; 

C.   10  Am.  R.  126;    Olds  v.  State,  6  Cumberland,   etc.,   Co.   v.    Hoffman, 

Blackf.  91;  Wilson  v.  Hamer,  1   M.  etc.,  Co.,  39  Barb.  16;  Adams  w.  Olive, 

&  S.  120;  Commonwealth  v.  Jackson,  57  Ala.  249;    Walton  v.  Develing,  61 

1  Leigh.  485;  Benedict  v.  Bray,  2  Cal.  111.  201 ;  People  v.  Falconer,  2  Sandf. 

251,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  332;  Sheeley  ».  81;  Harbaugh  v.  Albertson,  102  Ind. 

Wiggs,   32   Mo.   398,   405;    Garnet  v.  69,  S.  C.  1  N.  E.  R.  298;  Fenton  v. 

Rodgers,  52  Mo.  145;  Hessey  v.  Heit-  Harred,  17  Pa.  St.  158;  Hoy  v.  Rogers, 

kamp,  9  Mo.  App.  36.  4  Monr.  225;  Elliott's  Appellate  Pro- 

^  Stevenson  v.   Miller,  2  Lit.  (Ky.)  cedure,  §357. 
306,  S.  C.  13  Am.  Dec.  271 ;    Gudtner 


§  2G8  jLiiisDicTioN.  347 

litigation  you  have  no  right  of  action  because  the  plaintiff  in- 
stituted his  action  in  the  wrong  court.  If  the  defendant  is 
free  from  wrong  and  tlie  plaintiff  does  him  a  wrong  resulting 
in  loss  or  injury,  the  plainest  principles  of  natural  justice  re- 
quire that  the  plaintiff  be  estopped  from  asserting  that  the 
court  of  his  own  choice  had  no  jurisdiction.  The  argument 
that  as  there  was  no  jurisdiction  all  things  are  nullities  is  falla- 
cious for  it  assumes  the  point  in  dispute,  namely,  that  the 
plaintiff  is  concluded  from  denying  what  he  has  previously 
asserted.^ 

§  268.  Transfer  of  Jurisdiction. — The  policy  of  the  law  is  to 
keep  a  case  in  one  court  and  not  distribute  it  piecemeal  be- 
tween different  tribunals,  so  that  the  general  rule  is  that  when 
a  case  goes  by  due  course  of  law  from  one  tribunal  to  another 
it  goes  as  an  entirety.  As  we  have  said  when  a  case  goes  by 
writ  of  error  or  appeal  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  tribunal 
the  case  in  all  its  parts  is  transferred  to  the  higher  court. -^  But 
a  mere  attempt  to  appeal,  or  an  appeal  so  entirely  ineffective 
as  not  to  get  the  case  into  the  appellate  tribunal  can  not  oper- 
ate to  transfer  jurisdiction. "^  Where  a  petition  and  bond  are 
filed  according  to  law  for  the  removal  of  a  case  from  a  State  to 
a  Federal  court,  jurisdiction  is  transferred.*  A  case  may  be 
transferred  from  one  court  to  another  by  law,  and  as  there  is 
no  vested  right  in  a  tribunal  the  legislature  may,  in  the  absence 
of  constitutional  restrictions,  provide  by  statute  for  such  transfer 

'  There  is,  of  course,  no  difRcuIty  in  ^  Ante,   §§235,   265;    McKinney   v. 
applying    the     doctrine    of    estoppel  Jones,  57  Wis.  301 ;  ^.c  parft^  Sihbald, 
where  there  is  jurisdiction  of  the  gen-  12  Pet.  488 ;    McClannahan's  Heirs  v. 
eral  subject,  for  where  such  jurisdic-  Henderson,  1  T.  B.  Monr.  261 ;    Mo- 
tion exists  an  affirmance  of  the  valid-  Arthur  v.  Dane,  61  Ala.  539;  Boynton 
ity  of  the  judgment,  as  by  accepting  v.  Foster,  7  Met.  415;    Marysville  v. 
benefits  or  the  like,  may  preclude  the  Buchanan,  3  Cal.  212;    McMillan  v. 
party  from  assailing  the  judgment  in  Richards,  12  Cal.  467. 
any  mode.     Trickey  t\  Schladder,  52  ''State    v.    Kolsem,    130    Ind.   434; 
111.  78;    Freeman  v.  Weeks,  45  ]Mich.  Brady  i\  Burke,  90  Cal.  1. 
335;    Cornwall  v.  Davis,  38  Fed.   R.  *  Railroad  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U.  S. 
878;  Murphy  v.  United  States,  104  U.  5;  Steamship  y.  Tugman,  106  U.  S.  118. 
S.  404;    Xeal    v.    Field,  68  Ga.   534; 
Paine  v.  Woolley,  80  Ky.  568. 


348 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  268 


as  to  pending  cases. ^  There  is  much  conflict  of  authority  upon 
the  question  whether  the  filing  of  an  affidavit  for  a  change  of 
venue  of  itself  transfers  jurisdiction;  our  opinion  is  that  it 
does  not.  There  is  also  conflict  upon  the  question  whether 
the  filing  of  an  affidavit  so  operates  as  to  terminate  the  juris- 
diction of  the  court  in  which  it  is  filed,  and  this  question  must, 
as  we  believe,  be  answered  in  the  negative. 


1  Branson  v.  Studebaker,133  Ind.147, 
S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  98.  The  doctrine  of 
the  power  of  the  legislature  over  rem- 
edies is  discussed  by  Judge  Cooley 
with  vigor  and  ability,  and  one  of  his 
statements  is,  that,  "It  may  abolish 
one  class  of  courts  and  create  another. ' ' 
Cooley's  Const.  Lim.(6thed.)442.  It  is 
true  that,  comprehensive  as  the  power 
of  the  legislature  is  over  remedies,  it 
can  not  deny  entirely  a  right  to  some 
remedy,  but  it  may  essentially  change 


the  remedy.  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield, 
4  Wheat.  122 ;  Tennessee  v.  Sneed,  96 
U.  S.  69;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U. 
S.  595;  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102 
U.  S.  203;  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall. 
646 ;  Terry  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  628. 
In  Brown  v.  Buck,  75  Mich.  438,  S.  C. 
13  Am.  St.  R.  438,  the  court  held  a 
statute  providing  for  a  jury  trial  in 
suits  in  equity  to  be  unconstitutional, 
but  this  seems  to  be  out  of  line  with 
the  authorities. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


CHOOSING  THE  FORUM,   REMEDY  AND   MODE  OF  TRIAL. 


§  269.  Election  to  try  by  court  or  jury.      §  277. 

270.  Effect  of  mistake  in  choice  of        278. 

remedy. 

271.  Facts  differently  pleaded  may        279. 

bring  different  result.  280. 

272.  Election  to  sue  in  tort  or  on 

implied  contract. 

273.  Nature  of  relief  may  determine        281. 

choice  of  remedy. 

274.  Election  of  remedy  in  case  of        282. 

fraudulent  purchase. 

275.  Election  as  against  trustee.  283. 

276.  General    rule  —  Election    bars 

inconsistent  remedy.  284. 


Right  to  jury  trial. 

When  to  try  by  jury  —  Sym- 
pathy. 

When  to  try  by  court. 

Considerations  which  deter- 
mine whether  to  try  by  court 
or  jury. 

Jury  will  generally  award  lib- 
eral damages. 

Instructions  where  trial  is  by 
jury. 

Judgment  of  jurors  on  facts  oft- 
en better  than  that  of  judge. 

Delay  and  partiality  of  judge. 


§  269.  Election  to  try  by  court  or  Jury. — Tlie  advocate  can 
not  always  choose  the  forum  for  the  trial  of  his  case,  but  he 
may  often  so  construct  his  theory  and  frame  his  pleadings  as 
to  determine  whether  the  case  shall  be  tried  by  the  court  or  by 
the  jury.  In  most  jurisdictions  a  suit  in  equity  is  heard  by 
the  court  without  a  jury,'  and  almost  all  actions  at  law  may  be 
tried  either  by  the  court  or  by  the  jury,  as  the  parties  may 
elect.  An  advocate  who  determines  that  it  is  expedient  to  try 
by  the  court,  and  avoid  a  jury  trial,  will,  whenever  it  is  prac- 
ticable, so  frame  his  pleadings  as  to  constitute  his  cause  one  of 
equity  jurisdiction.     It  is,  as  all  lawyers  know,  not  possible  to 


•  For  examples  of  equity  suits  or  de- 
fenses not  triable  by  jury,  see  Lynch 
V.  Met.  Elev.  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  274,  S. 
C.  15  L.  R,  A.  287;  Coleman  y.  Cole- 
man (Ind.),  31  N.  E.  Rep.  75;  Shep- 
pard  v.  Steele,  43  N.  Y.  52;  Stono  i'. 
Weiller,  128  N.  Y.  655,  S.  C.  28  N.  E. 
Rep.  635 ;  North  Hudson  B.  &  L.  Ass'n 


V.  Childs,  82  Wis.  460,  S.  C.  52  N.  W. 
Rep.  600;  Leeper  v.  Taylor,  111  Mo. 
312,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  Rep.  955;  Weil  v. 
Kume,  49  Mo.  158 ;  Wynkoop  r.  Cooch, 
89  Pa.  St.  450 ;  Lake  r.  ToUes,  8  Nev. 
285;  Stilwell  v.  Kellogg.  14  Wis.  461; 
Miller  y.  City  of  Indianapolis,  123  lud. 
196. 


(349) 


350  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  270 

do  this  ill  every  case;  nor,  indeed,  in  many  cases;  but  it  may 
be  done  in  some.  And  the  fact  that  equity  may  have  jurisdic- 
tion does  not  prevent  the  maintenance  of  an  action  at  law.^ 
Thus,  it  often  happens  that  a  phiintiff  may  elect  to  bring  an 
action  for  damages  for  a  breach  of  contract,  or  he  may  institute 
a  suit  for  specific  performance.^  Notwithstanding  the  changes 
made  by  the  codes  of  civil  procedure  adopted  in  many  of  the 
States,  there  is  in  most  of  them  still  an  election  between  rem- 
edies. An  advocate  may  very  often  elect  which  remedy  he  will 
pursue,  and  when  he  does  elect,  he  w^ill,  of  course,  make  the 
theory  and  the  pleadings  conform  to  the  rules  which  govern 
the  class  of  cases  in  which  he  has  elected  to  place  the  case  in- 
trusted to  him. 

§  270.  Effect  of  mistake  in  choice  of  remedy. — A  mistake  in 
the  choice  of  remedies  may,  in  some  instances,  bring  certain 
defeat,  and  in  all  it  is  very  apt  to  endanger  success.  The  se- 
lection of  a  radically  wrong  remedy  insures  defeat,  and  even 
if  a  remedy  is  chosen  that  is  not  radically  wrong  it  may,  if  the 
best  is  not  chosen,  seriously  embarrass  and  impede  the  advo- 
cate in  his  work.  The  choice  of  remedies  is  not,  therefore, 
governed  solely  by  the  consideration  of  whether  it  is  a  proper 
one,  for  the  question  whether  it  is  the  best  one,  must  also  be 
considered.  The  same  facts  may  bring  success  under  one  form 
of  procedure,  or  in  one  forum,  and  defeat  in  another.  Thus, 
a  suit  for  injunction  will  fail  if  brought  to  enjoin  the  defendant 
from  committing  a  fugitive  trespass,  but  an  action  at  law  will 
lie.'^  An  action  to  recover  damages  for  a  breach  of  contract 
may  lie  where  an  action  for  a  breach  of  warranty  would  fail. 
An   action  for  damages  for  trespass  to  land  brought  in  one 

'  Duffield  V.  Rosenzweig,  144  Pa.  St.  grass  v.  Snodgrass,  32  Ind.  406;  Dot- 

520,  S.  C.  23  Atl.R.4 ;  Reynolds  v.  Hen-  ron  v.  Bailey,  76  Ind.  434. 
nessey,  17R.1. 169,  S.C.23Atl.R.639.        »  Bolster  v.  Catterlin,  10  Ind.  117; 

But,  as  a  general  rule,  subject  to  many  Minnig's  Appeal,  82  Pa.  St.  373 ;  Frink 

exceptions,  when  an  adequate  remedy  v.  Stewart,  94  N.  Car.  484 ;  Smith  v. 

at  law  exists,  equity  will  refuse  relief.  Gardner,  12  Ore.  221,  S.  C.  53  Am.  R. 

*  Graves  v.  White,  87  N.  Y.  463,  465 ;  342,  and  note. 
Smyth  V.  Sturges,  108  N.  Y.  495 ;  Snod- 


§  271  CHOOSING  THE   FORUM.  351 

county  may  fail,  but  succeed  if  brought  in  another.  An  action 
may  be  maintained  in  one  court,  but,  although  the  facts  may 
be  the  same,  not  in  another;  for  one  court  may  have  jurisdic- 
tion and  the  others  not.  There  may  sometimes  be  concurrent 
jurisdiction,  and  one  judge  may  be  preferable  to  another.  So, 
too,  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  select  the  venue  for  trial  by  a 
judicious  naming  of  parties,  or  a  selection  of  the  form  of  the 
remedy.  There  are  many  cases  where  much  depends  upon  the 
form  of  the  remedy,  the  court,  and  the  place  of  trial,  and  these 
are  matters  not  to  be  lightly  disregarded. 

§  271.   Facts  differently  pleaded  may  bring  different  result. 

— The  same  facts  differently  pleaded  may  lead  to  different  re- 
sults. Thus,  a  suit  to  foreclose  may  be  maintained  on  a  deed 
absolute  on  its  face  but  executed  to  secure  a  debt,  for  it  may 
be  treated  as  a  mortgage;  but  it  would  not  support  an  action 
of  ejectment  nor  a  suit  to  quiet  title.  In  a  reported  case  the 
'facts,  shortly  stated,  were  these:  The  defendants  were  the 
owners  of  a  sow  which  went  upon  the  plaintiff's  land  and  in- 
jured his  cow.  The  plaintiff,  instead  of  laying  as  his  cause  of 
action,  as  he  might  have  done,  the  trespass  of  the  sow,  and 
charging  tlie  injury  to  the  cow  in  aggravation  of  damages, 
sued  for  the  injury  done  by  the  sow  and  lost  his  case,  because 
he  did  not  prove  that  the  defendants  had  knowledge  of  the 
vicious  propensities  of  the  sow.^  In  another  case  the  defendant, 
an  infant,  hired  a  horse,  and  so  ill-treated  it  that  it  died,  and 
the  plaintiff,  instead  of  declaring  on  the  tort,  sued  to  recover 
damages  for  a  breach  of  the  implied  contract  to  take  reasonable 
care  of  the  horse,  and  was  defeated."^ 

§  272.  Election  to  sue  in  tort  or  on  implied  contract. — 
Even  in  those  jurisdictions  where  the  code  practice  prevails 
there  may  be  an  action  on  the  tort  or  on  the  implied  contract, 
at  the  election  of  the  plaintiff.^     It  is  sometimes  difficult  to  de- 

»  Van  Leuven  v.  Lyke,  1  N.  Y.  515.  ^  Adams  r.  Sage,  28  N.  Y.  103 ;  Mol- 

» Campbell  r.  Stakes,  2  Wend.  137.  ler  v.  Tiiska,  87  N.  Y.  16G;    Wilmot  v. 

See.  also,  McLaughlin  v.  Dunn,  45  Mo.  Richardson,  2  Keyes  (N.Y.),  519;  Bix- 

App.  645.  l>io    i-.   Wood,  24  N.  Y.   G07;    Union 


352  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  273 

termine  whether  it  is  expedient  to  waive  the  tort  and  sue  on 
the  contract,  or  to  ground  the  action  on  the  tort,  for  the  elec- 
tion may,  in  a  great  degree,  control  the  method  of  trial,  and 
materially  affect  the  rights  of  the  parties  under  the  judgment 
recovered.  A  wrong  decision  of  this  question  may  lead  to  evil 
results,  and  once  made  the  party  can  not  retrace  his  steps,  but 
must  abide  by  his  decision.  It  is  clear  that,  in  general,  an  ac- 
tion on  the  contract  will  be  simpler  and  require  less  evidence, 
but  the  damages  may  not  be  so  great  nor  the  judgment  so  ef- 
fective. It  is  sometimes  easier  to  secure  a  verdict  in  an  action 
for  fraudulent  representations  than  in  an  action  on  the  implied 
contract,  for  evidence  of  fraud  will  sometimes  strongly  influ- 
ence the  jury  against  the  defendant.  A  complaint  charging 
fraud  will,  as  is  well  known,  often  let  in  much  evidence  that 
would  not  be  relevant  in  an  action  on  the  implied  contract. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  sometimes  more  difficult  to  obtain  a 
verdict  where  it  can  only  be  gained  by  attributing  to  the  un- 
successful party  a  moral  wrong  than  it  is  where  he  is  simply 
charged  with  having  failed  to  perform  his  contract.  What 
course  is  expedient  in  such  a  case  can  only  be  determined  from 
a  careful  survey  and  study  of  the  facts,  and  a  consideration  of 
the  character  of  the  party  against  whom  fraud  is  alleged.  If 
a  man's  character  is  bad,  jurors  will  not  be  slow  to  believe 
him  guilty  of  fraud;  if  good,  they  will  be  extremely  reluctant 
to  impute  dishonesty  to  him. 

§  273.   Nature  of  relief  may  determine  choice  of  remedy. — 

In  other  cases  the  nature  of  the  relief  will  exert  an  important 
influence  upon  the  choice  of  the  form  of  the  remedy.  For  ex- 
ample, personal  property  is  sold  upon  the  condition  that  it 
shall  be  paid  for  in  cash,  and  possession  is  obtained  without  a 
performance  of  the  condition.  There  is  in  such  a  case  a  choice 
of  remedies,  for  the  seller  may  either  sue  for  the  value  of  the 
property,  or  he  may  bring  an  action  to  recover  possession  of 

Bank  v.  Mott,  27  N.  Y.  633 ;  Nowling  eye  v.  Clark,  90  Mich.  432,  S.  C.  51  N. 
r.  Mcintosh,  89  Ind.  593,  595 ;  Patter-  W.  Rep.  528;  Pomeroy's  Remedies, 
son  V.  Prior,  18  Ind.  440 ;  Tp.  of  Buck-    §§  568, 569. 


§  274  CHOOSING  THK  KORUM.  353 

it.*  If  the  sale  is  an  advantageous  one,  and  the  purchaser 
solvent,  it  would  probably  be  expedient  to  sue  for  the  value  of 
the  property;  but  if  he  is  insolvent,  then  the  better  course  would 
be  not  to  sue  on  the  implied  contract,  but  to  recover  the  prop- 
erty. In  the  one  instance  it  would  be  much  easier  to  make 
out  the  case,  but  the  judgment  when  obtained  might  be  of  no 
practical  value.  It  is  evident  that  the  matter  of  the  election 
of  remedies  is  one  requiring  care  and  judgment;  but  it  is 
further  evident  that,  after  all,  the  question  runs  back  to  the 
formation  of  the  theory,  for  the  theory  necessarily  determines 
the  form  of  the  action,  and  what  is  here  said  does  little  more 
than  show  the  application  of  the  rules  heretofore  stated  to  par- 
ticular instances.  It  is  not  our  purpose,  nor  is  it  within  the 
scope  of  our  work,  to  fully  discuss  the  rules  which  govern  the 
election  of  remedies,  or  the  methods  of  procedure,  for  all  tliat 
our  purpose  requires  is  a  mere  suggestion  of  the  necessity  of 
studying  with  care,  and  deciding  with  caution,  upon  the  choice 
of  remedies;  but  a  few  additional  illustrations  may  be  of  serv- 
ice, and  they  arc  given  in  tlie  fulhnving  sections. 

§  274.   Election  of  remedy  in  case  of  frcaiululent  purchase.— 

It  has  been  held  that  an  action  to  enforce  a  contract  procured 
by  fraud  is  not  necessarily  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  action  for  the 
fraud  where  both  actions  proceed  upon  the  theory  of  an  affirm- 
ance of  the  contract,^  but  it  is  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  action 
which  attacks  the  contract  and  seeks  to  recover  the  property. ^ 
So,  an  action  to  enforce  a  contract,  after  discovery  of  the  fraud, 
is  an  election  which  will  defeat  a  subsequent  action  to  rescind 
it  on  the  ground  of  fraud.-*     And,  on  the  other  hand,  an  ac- 

'  Morris  v.  Rexford,  18  N.  Y.  552;  443,  S.  C.  8   S.  Rep.  870;    Seavey  v. 

Moore  v.  Baker,  4  Irul.  App.  115,  S.  C.  Potter,    121   Mass.  297;    O'Donald  v. 

SO  N.  E.   Rep.  629;    Bensinger  Self-  Constant,  82  Ind.  212;  Bank  v.  Beale, 

Adding,  etc.,  Co.  i'.  Cain  (Tex.),  18  S.  34  N.Y.  473;  Kennedy  v.  Thorp,  51  n! 

W.  Rep.  136.  Y.  174. 

»  Union  Cent.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schid-  •'Acer  r.  Hotchkiss,  97  N.  Y.  395; 

]er.  130  Ind.  214,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A.  89 ;  Bryan  &  B.  Shoe  Co.  r.  Block,  52  Ark! 

Bowen  r.  Mandeville,  95  N.  Y.  237  ;  458;  Bulkley  i).  Morgan,  46  Conn.  393; 

Whittier  v.  Collins,  15  R.  I.  90.  Stevens  r.  Pierce.  151  :Mass.  207.     An 

*  Lehman    v.  Van   Winkle,  92  Ala.  attachment  to  enforce  a  contract  is  a 

23 


354  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  275 

tion  to  recover  the  property  upon  the  ground  of  fraud  will  de- 
feat a  subsequent  action  to  enforce  the  contract.^ 

§  275.  Election  as  against  trustees.  —  One  who  receives 
money  to  be  paid  by  him  to  another,  or  to  be  applied  by  him 
to  a  particular  purpose,  is  a  trustee  and  may  be  sued  either  in 
equity  for  breach  of  the  trust  or  at  law  for  money  had  and  re- 
ceived.^ And  an  election  may  be  made  to  follow  misapplied 
funds  or  to  hold  the  trustee.^  So,  one  who  is  entitled  to  a  de- 
posit in  a  savings  bank,  which  has  been  paid,  without  author- 
ity, to  another,  may  sue  the  latter  for  money  had  and  received 
or  he  may  elect  to  sue  the  bank  for  the  deposit,  but  his  elec- 
tion of  one  of  these  remedies  will  prevent  a  subsequent  resort 
to  the  other.* 

§  276.   General  rule — Election  bars  inconsistent  remedy. — 

The  importance  of  selecting  the  best  remedy  in  the  first  in- 
stance is  clearly  seen  when  we  consider  the  general  rule  de- 
duced from  the  foregoing  and  other  authorities.  It  is  this: 
AVhere  a  party  has  the  choice  of  inconsistent  remedies  the  se- 
lection of  one,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  is  a  bar  to  the 
other. ^  But  the  rule  is  otherwise  where  the  remedies  are  con- 
current and  not  inconsistent.  In  such  a  case  the  pursuit  of 
one  is  not  necessarily  a  bar  to  the  other. ^  And  the  mere  fact 
that  a  party  mistakes  his  remedy,  believing  he  has   two   or 

conclusive  election  to  affirm  it.     Con-  v.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331 ;  Becker  v.  Wal- 

row  V.  Little,  115  N.  Y.  387,  S.  C.  5  L.  worth,  45  Ohio  St.  169;  Curtis  v.  Will- 

E.  A.  693;  Sickman  v.  Abernathy,  14  iamson,  L.  R.,  10  Q.  B.  57;    Sears  v. 

Col.  174.  Carrier,  4  Allen  (Mass.) ,  339 ;  O'Bryan 

1  Holler  r.  Tuska,  87  N.  Y.  166;  Mor-  v.  Glenn,  91  Tenn.  106,  S.  C.  30  Am. 

ris  V.  Rexford,  18  N.  Y.  552.  St.  Rep.  862 ;  Ewing  v.  Cook,  85  Tenn. 

« Taylor  v.  Benham,  5  How.  (U.  S.)  332,  S.  C.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  765;  Thomp- 

233.  son  V.  Howard,  31  Mich.  309;  Farwell 

3  Hodges  V.  Bullock,  15  R.  I.  592.  v.  Myers,  59  Mich.  179;    Crompton  v. 

*  Fowler  v.  Bowery  Sav.  Bank,  113  Beach  (Conn.),  18  L.  R.  A.  187. 

N.  Y.  450,  S.  C.  4  L.  R.  A.  145,  S.  C.  «  Shaw  v.  Beers,  25  Ala.  449;    Mc- 

10  Am.  St.  Rep.  479.  Bean  v.  Fox,  1  111.  App.  177;    Gold- 

*  Boots  w.  Ferguson,  46  Hun  (N.Y.),  berg  v.  Dougherty,  7  Jones  &  S.  (N. 
129;  Fields  v.  Bland,  81  N.  Y.  239;  Y.)  189;  Connihan  u.  Thompson,  111 
Banktj.  Beale,  34N.  Y.  473;    Nanson  Mass.  270. 


§  277  CHOOSING  THE  FORUM.  355 

more  remedies  when  he  has  not,  and  pursues  the  wrong  one, 
will  not  of  itself  prevent  him  from  suhsequently  obtaining  re- 
dress by  the  proper  remedy.^ 

§  277.  Rig:ht  to  jury  trial. — Where  the  action  is  at  law, 
then,  as  a  general  rule,  either  party  may  of  right  demand  a 
jury.'^  Of  the  existence  of  this  right  there  is  seldom  doubt, 
but  as  to  when  it  is  expedient  to  exercise  it  there  is  much 
doubt.  It  is  not  easy  for  the  advocate,  with  the  case  fully  be- 
fore him,  to  decide  whether  a  jury  shall  come  or  not,  and  it  is 
more  difficult  to  give  advice  upon  the  abstract  question. 
Some  general  rules,  proved  by  the  experience  of  great  advo- 
cates, may,  however,  be  given,  and  from  these  the  thinker  will 
deduce  the  conclusion  as  to  what  it  is  expedient  to  do  in  his 
own  particular  case. 

§  278.    When  to  try  by  Jury— Sympathy.— Where  the  case 

is  one  not  strong  in  its  facts,  but  appealing  to  the  sympathies 
of  men,  then  let  a  jury  come.^  Judges  are  much  less  apt  to 
yield  to  sympathy,  for,  although  they  may  be  moved,  yet  duty 
holds  sympathy  in  check.  Jurors,  not  bound  by  a  stern  sense 
of  duty,  yield,  where  there  is  a  fair  appearance  of  excuse,  to 
their  emotions.  They  will,  indeed,  search  for  an  excuse,  and 
it  will  go  hard  with  them  if  they  do  not  find  one.  As  jurors 
are  liable  to  err  on  the  one  side,  judges  are  liable  to  err  on  the 
other  side,  through  fear  of  sacrificing  duty  to  sympathy.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  specify  the  cases  which  fall  under  this  rule, 
for  they  will  readily  occur  to  every  one  who  gives  the  subject 
any  thought. 

§  279.  When  to  try  by  court. — If  the  case  is  really  a  strong 
one,  although  somewhat  obscured,  it  should  be  tried  by  the 
court  by  all  means,'*  unless  some  countervailing  facts  make  a 

'  Bunch  V.  Grave,  111  Ind.  351 ;  But-  Rep.  251 ;  Taylor  v.  Ford,  !)2  Cal.  419, 

ler  V.  Hildreth,  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  49, 52 ;  S.  C.  28  Pac.  Rep.  441. 

Peters  v.  Ballistier,  3  Pick.(Mass.)495.  '  31  Alb.  L.  J.  504. 

»  Flint  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Rob-  ♦  "If,"  says  a  writer  in  the  American 

erts,  2  Fla.  102,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  178,  Law  Record,   "the  lawyer  tliinks  the 

and  note;  Eshelman  r.  Chicago,  B.  i<i  cause  good  in  law  an<l  justice,  he  will 

Q.  R.  R.  Co.,  67  la.  296,  S.  C.  25  N.W.  prefer  to  have  it  tried  by  the  judge." 


356  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  280 

different  course  expedient.  A  judge  will  brush  aside  obscuri- 
ties that  would  perplex  jurors,  and  he  will  trim  down  all  im- 
material matters  and  go  at  once  to  the  strong  points.  Where 
the  case  relates  to  matters  generally  known  to  jurors  because 
of  their  business  or  associations  in  life,  then  a  jury  trial  is  ex- 
pedient, unless  the  knowledge  or  the  prejudices  of  the  jurors  will 
probably  be  adverse  to  the  client  the  advocate  represents.  In 
many  matters  the  knowledge  of  jurors  is  better  and  more  prac- 
tical than  that  of  the  judge,  and  that  knowledge  should  be 
made  available  whenever  possible.  Jurors  are  less  restricted 
by  rules  than  judges  are,  and  will  often  render  a  verdict  in  ac- 
cordance with  what  they  esteem  justice,  while  the  judge,  bound 
by  dut}^,  would  deal  out  the  stern  law.  Jurors  love  what  they 
call  justice,  and  although  it  is  often  "a  wild  kind  of  justice," 
still  it  is  a  kind  that  may  be  frequently  pressed  into  service. 

§  280.  Considerations  which  determine  whether  to  try  by 
court  or  jury. — If  a  really  strong  advocate  is  on  the  other  side, 
or  one  who  has  great  influence  with  the  jury,  whether  that  in- 
fluence be  attributable  to  ability,  or  to  some  other  cause,  a  jury 
trial  should,  if  possible,  be  avoided.  If  the  case  is  one  where  the 
technical  rules  are  one  way,  and  operate  with  seeming  harsh- 
ness, then,  as  any  one  will  see,  a  jury  is  wanted  by  the  one 
side  but  not  by  the  other.  A  party  who  has  a  bad  witness  on 
his  side  that  he  must  call  is  safer  in  the  hands  of  the  court 
than  in  the  hands  of  the  jury,  for  the  trained  mind  of  the  judge 
will  enable  him  to  see  that  a  bad  witness  does  not  taint  the 
others,  whereas  a  jury  is  almost  sure  to  judge  the  other  wit- 
nesses by  the  company  they  are  found  in. 

§  281.  Jury  willg^enerally  award  liberal  damages. — Where 
liberal  damages  are  wanted  and  expected  a  jury  is  needed. 
Judges  are  likely  to  award  damages  as  compensation,  or  in  the 
nature  of  compensation,  whereas  juries  are  almost  sure  to  give 
liberal  compensation,  and  to  add  something  for  sympathy,  and 
still  more  by  way  of  punishment.  There  are  many  cases  where 
there  is  no  definite  rule  for  measuring  damages,  and  in  such 


§  282  CHOOSING  THE  FORUM.  357 

cases,  if  sympathy  is  aroused,  jurors  will  deal  out  compensa- 
tion unsparingly,  and  will  not  stop  with  that.  Especially  will 
they  liberally  award  damages  where  one  side  is  powerful  and 
the  other  weak.  A  weak  woman  is  almost  sure  to  be  dealt 
with  very  liberally  if  a  man  be  the  adverse  party.  Everyone, 
lawyer  or  layman,  knows  how  great  corporations  fare. 

§  282.  Instructions  where  trial  is  by  jury. — Where  the  pol- 
icy of  the  party  is  to  compel  the  judge  to  fully  state  the  law,  it 
is  well  to  take  a  jury  and  ask  the  judge  to  instruct  in  writing. 
This  course  is  expedient  where  there  has  been  an  adverse  rul- 
ing on  the  pleadings,  and  an  appeal  is  in  view.  But,  while  it 
is  always  advisable  to  save  questions,  the  true  course  is  to  fight 
to  win  in  the  trial  court.  That  should  be  the  chief  purpose, 
although  it  is  prudent  to  prepare  for  an  appeal  by  saving  ques- 
tions. This  purpose,  however,  should,  we  may  say  at  the  ex- 
pense of  a  slight  digression,  be  veiled  and  not  revealed  to  the 
jury- 

§  283.  Jud^^ment  of  Jurors  on  facts  often  better  than  that 
of  Judge. — Jurors  come  to  the  consideration  of  a  case  with  fresh 
and  unoccupied  minds,  and  the  case  placed  before  them  is  heard 
with  eager  interest;  whereas,  the  judge  almost  always  has  many 
other  cases  in  his  mind,  and  the  new  case  can  not  receive  his 
undivided  attention.  Nor  is  he  called  to  do  work  novel  or 
strange;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  work  is  commonplace  and 
familiar,  unless,  indeed,  the  case  is  a  peculiar  and  striking 
one.  For  these  reasons  the  judgment  of  twelve  jurors  on  a 
question  of  fact  is  often  really  better  than  that  of  the  judge. ^ 
This,  however,  is  true  only  where  the  jurors  are  men  of  average 

'  "As  for  responsibility,  a  judge,  be-  the  situation  is  new,  whose  attention 

ing  a  permanent  officer,  especially  a  is  excited,   wlio  for  the  first  time  in 

judge  sitting  alone,  is  more  responsible  his  life  is  called  upon  to  exercise  pub- 

to  public  opinion  than  any  individual  lie   functions   in   the   face   of  all  his 

juryman,  who  is  one  of  a  body  assem-  neighbors,  than  in  that  of  a  judgt  who 

bled  only  once  and  immediately  dis-  is,  perhaps,  doing  to-day  what  he  has 

solved.     But  I  believe  that  the  feeling  been   doing  ever\'  day  for  ten  years 

of  moral  responsibility  is  nuich  strong-  before." — Sir  W.  Erie. 
er  in  the  case  of  the  juryman,  to  whom 


358  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  284 

intelligence,  who  have  not  tried  many  cases,  for  of  all  bad  triers 
professional  jurors  are  the  worst.  The  things  we  have  sug- 
gested merit  consideration  by  one  who  is  deliberating  upon  the 
question  whether  he  will  try  his  case  by  the  court  or  by  the 
jury. 

§  284.  Delay  and  partiality  of  Judge. — Another  matter  that 
deserves  attention  is  this:  A  prompt  decision  is  generally  ob- 
tained from  a  jury,  while  many  judges  delay  their  decisions. 
Two  evils  result  from  these  delays;  one  is  that  the  case  is  often 
postponed  until  the  facts  are  forgotten  or  indistinctly  remem- 
bered, and  the  case  is  decided  on  blurred  and  indistinct  im- 
pressions; the  other  is  that  long  delay  makes  it  very  difficult 
to  secure  a  full  and  accurate  bill  of  exceptions.  Another  rea- 
son for  trying  by  the  jury  is  that  there  are,  it  must  with  reluc- 
tance be  owned,  some  trial  judges  who  so  strongly  adhere  to 
what  they  have  decided  that  they  will  do  injustice  by  denying 
a  fair  bill  of  exceptions  in  order  to  prevent  their  decisions  from 
being  overthrown  on  appeal.  There  are,  happily,  very  few 
such  judges,  but  the  advocate  who  is  so  unfortunate  as  to  be 
compelled  to  practice  before  such  a  judge  will  do  well  to  trust 
the  jury.  It  is  said  by  an  eminent  man,^  and,  indeed,  it  is 
said  by  more  than  one  man,  that  some  judges  are  influenced 
by  particular  advocates.  Where  this  is  true,  of  course  the  ad- 
vocate who  opposes  one  who  controls  the  judge  will  try  by  the 
jury  and  not  by  the  court. 

1  Sir  W.  Erie. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


TIME    OF    HRIN'(iIN(;    THE    ACTION. 


§  285.  Effect  of  lapse  of  time  to  be     §  296.  Nuisance. 


considered    before    bringing 
action. 

286.  When  cause  of  action  accrues 

— General  rules. 

287.  Accounts. 

288.  Agents  and  fiduciaries. 

289.  Contracts  generally. 

290.  Contribution. 

291.  Conversion. 

292.  Corporations. 

293.  Fraud — Concealment. 

294.  Judgments. 

295.  Negligence. 


297.  Real  property.  , 

298.  Trusts.  « 
2i)9.  What  law  governs. 

300.  Election  of  remedy. 

301.  Set-off. 

302.  Equity— Laches. 

303.  When  action  is  begun. 

304.  Computation  of  time. 

305.  Effect  of  disability. 

306.  New   promise  or  acknowledg- 

ment. 

307.  Special  limitations. 

308.  Presumptions. 


§  2S.5.  Effect  of  lapse  of  time  to  be  considered  before  bring- 
ing action. — Before  an  action  of  any  kind  should  be  brought, 
and  in  order  to  determine  what  remedy  and  forum  should  be 
chosen,  where  the  right  of  election  exists,  the  effect  of  lapse  of 
time  since  the  cause  of  action  arose  must  be  considered.  It 
may  be  that  the  statute  of  limitations  has  barred  all  remedies, 
or  it  may  be  that,  although  one  })articular  remedy  is  barred  by 
the  statute,  another  is  not.  So,  it  may  be  that  there  has  been 
such  laches  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  as  to  prevent  him  from 
obtaining  relief  in  a  court  of  equity;  and  there  may  be  pre- 
sumptions, ari;^ing  from  lapse  of  time,  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
defeat  an  action.  All  these  matters  should  be  carefully  con- 
sidered before  the  action  is  brought. 

§  286.   When  cause  of  action  accrues — General  rules. — In 

order  to  determine  llie  effect  of  lapse  of  time  it  is  first  neces- 
sary to  know  when  the  right  of  action  accrued.  Ordinarily, 
in  cases  of  contract  the  time  when  the  cause  of  action  accrues 
may  be  determined  from  the  terms  of  the  contract,  and  in  cases 

(359) 


360 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  286 


of  tort  it  may  be  fixed  by  the  time  of  the  'commission  of  the 
wrongful  act;  but  there  are  many  cases  in  which  the  question 
is  one  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  determine.  It  may  be  said, 
generally,  however,  that  where  a  right  or  claim  depends  upon 
some  condition  or  contingency,  the  statute  does  not  begin  to 
run  until  the  happening  of  the  contingency  or  fulfillment  of 
the  condition.^  So,  where  a  demand  is  necessary  to  perfect 
the  cause  of  action,  the  general  rule  is  that  the  statute  does  not 
begin  to  run  until  the  demand  is  made.^     And  a  cause  of  ac- 


» Judge  V.  Everts,  64  Wis.  372 ;  Dam- 
ront;.  Penn.  Co.,  99Ind.  478;  Miller 
V.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  133 ;  Hall  v. 
Felton,  105  Mass.  516;  Arnold  v. 
United  States,  9  Cranch,  104;  Fenton 
V.  Emblers,  3  Burr.  1278;  Rhodes  v. 
Smethurst,  4  M.  &  W.  42 ;  Goodnow 
V.  Stryker,  62  la.  221 ;  Bowles  v.  El- 
more, 7  Gratt.  (Va.)  385;  Atkinson  v. 
Bradford,  etc.,  Soc,  L.  R.,  25  Q.  B. 
Div.  377;  Savage  v.  Aldren,  2  Stark. 
206. 

i  ''Bank  of  B.  N.  A.  v.  Merchants' 
Nat.  Bank,  91  N.  Y.  106;  Bruce  v. 
Tilson,  25  N.  Y.  194;  Borland  v.  Dor- 
land,  66  Cal.  189;  Brewster  v.  Hobart, 
15  Pick.  (Mass.)  302;  Girard  Bank -y. 
Bank  of  Penn  Tp.,  39  Pa.  St,  92 ;  Fink- 
bone's  Appeal,  86  Pa.  St.  368;  Mc- 
Gough  V.  Jamison,  107  Pa.  St.  336; 
Hawkins  v.  Glenn,  131  TJ.  S.  319,  334; 
Gutch  V.  Fosdick,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  353,  S. 
C.  22  Atl.  Rep.  590;  Cole  v.  Wright, 
70  Ind.  179;  Atherton  v.  Williams,  19 
Ind.  105;  Lynch  v.  Jennings,  43  Ind. 
276;  Emerick  v.  Chesrown,  90  Ind. 
47.  If  made  prior  to  the  time  when 
it  should  be  made,  so  that  the  party 
upon  whom  it  is  made  is  under  no 
obligation  to  comply  therewith,  it  will 
not  set  the  statute  in  motion.  Langs- 
dale  V.  Woollen,  99  Ind.  575.  But  a 
note  payaVjle  on  demand  is  due  imme- 
diately and  the  statute  runs  from  its 
date.  McMullen  v.  Rafferty,  89  N.  Y. 
456,  459;    Wenman  v.  Mohawk  Ins. 


Co.,  13  Wend.  267,  S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec. 
464,  and  note ;  Kimball  v.  Kimball,  16- 
Mich.  211 ;  Kraft  v.  Thomas,  123  Ind. 
513 ;  Mills  v.  Davis,  113  N.  Y.  243,  S. 
C.  3  L.  R.  A.  394;  Norton  v.  Ellam,  2 
M.  &  W.  461.  Failure  to  make  a  de- 
mand within  a  reasonable  time  may 
set  the  statute  to  running,  and,  accord- 
ing to  some  authorities,  if  not  made 
within  the  statutory  period,  will  de- 
feat the  action.  Codman  v.  Rogers,  10- 
Pick.  (Mass.)  112;  Palmer  i;.  Palmer, 
36  Mich.  487,  S.  C.  24  Am.  Rep.  605; 
Jameson  v.  Jameson,  72  Mo.  640; 
Reizenstein  v.  Marquardt,  75  la.  294, 
S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  477;  High  v. 
Board,  92  Ind.  580 ;  Newsom  v.  Board, 
103  Ind.  526;  Kraft  v.  Thomas,  123 
Ind.  513.  Compare  Keithler  v.  Foster, 
22  Ohio  St.27 ;  Thrall  tJ.Mead,40Vt.540 ; 
Daugherty  V.Wheeler,  125  Ind.421,426 ; 
Smith  V.  Smith,  91  Mich.  7,  S.  C.  51 
N.  W.  Rep.  694,  which  show  that  it  is 
unreasonable  in  some  cases  to  hold 
the  action  completely  barred  at  the 
end  of  the  statutory  period  by  mere 
failure  to  make  a  demand.  The  fol- 
lowing rules  have  been  laid  down  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Indiana  for  de- 
termining when  a  demand  is  neces- 
sary: "1.  When  the  time  and  place 
of  payment  are  fixed  in  the  contract 
no  demand  is  necessary  before  suit. 
2.  When  the  time  of  payment  is  fixed 
and  the  place  is  left  undetermined  by 
the  contract  no  demand  is  necessary.. 


§287 


TIME    OF    BRINGING    TIIK    ACTION. 


361 


tioii  does  not  accrue  in  favor  of  a  roinaiiidcrman  until  theternni- 
nalion  of  the  prior  estate.^  Under  the  rule  that  the  statute  of 
limitations  begins  to  run  from  the  time  tlie  cause  of  action  ac- 
crued, the  phrase  "cause  of  action"  implies  not  only  right  of 
action  but  also  power  of  action.^  In  other  words,  there  must 
be  some  one  who  can  sue  and  some  one  who  can  be  sued."* 

§  287.  Accounts. — The  statute  begins  to  run  in  case  of  an 
open,  mutual  and  current  account  from  the  date  of  the  last 
item.*  Where  the  account  is  for  work  and  labor  performed 
under  an  entire  contract  and  no  time  is  specified  as  to  when  it 
shall  be  completed  or  payment  made,  the  statute  does  not  begin 
to  run  until  the  work  is  completed.^  So,  it  has  been  held  that 
the  statute  will  not  begin  to  run  on  an  open  and  unsettled  ac- 
count between  an  attorney  and  client  until  the  termination  of 


\ 


3.  If  the  contract  be  to  pay  on  de- 
mand, a  special  demand  before  suit  is 
necessary,  though  on  a  contract  to  pay 
money  such  demand  is  not  necessary. 

4.  When  the  place  of  payment  is  fixed 
by  the  contract,  but  the  time  is  left 
undetermined,  a  demand  before  suit 
is  necessary.  5.  "When  botli  tlie  time 
and  place  of  payment  are  left  unde- 
termined by  the  contract  a  demand 
before  suit  is  necessary."  Frazee  v. 
McChord,  1  Ind.  224. 

'  Fleming  v.  Burnham,  100  N.  Y.  1 ; 
Luntz  V.  Greve,  102  Ind.  173;  Kellarr. 
Stanley,  86  Ky.  240;  Dugan  v.  Follett, 
100  111.  581 ;  Lindley  v.  Groff,  37  Minn. 
338 ;  Bradley  v.  Mo.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  91 
Mo.  493;  Pinckney  v.  Burrage,  31  N. 
J.  L.  21 ;  Burns  v.  Headerick,  8o  Tenn. 
102;  Orthwein  r.  Thomas,  127  111.  ooi, 

5.  C.  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  159,  and  note; 
Allen  V.  De  Groodt,  98  Mo.  159,  S.  C. 
14  .Vm.  St.  Rep.  626,  and  note. 

'Baker  v.  Barclift,  7(5  Ala.  414; 
Swann  v.  Lindsey,  70  Ala.  507;  Sor- 
rels V.  Trantham,  48  Ark.  386. 

^Sorrels  v.  Trantham,  48  Ark.  386; 
Murray  v.  The  East  India  Co.,  5  B.  & 


Aid.  204 ;  Reilly  r.  Chouquette,  18  Mo. 
220;  Brenner  v.  Quick,  88  Ind.  546, 
555;  Hobart  v.  Conn.  Tump.  Co.,  15 
Conn.  145 ;  Granger's  Administrator  v. 
Granger,  6  Ohio,  35. 

*  Frankoviz  v.  Smith,  34  Minn.  403 ; 
Skyrme  r.  Occidental,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Nev. 
219;  Schmeiding  v.  Ewing,  57  Mo. 
78;  O'Leary  v.  Burns,  53  Miss.  171; 
Coster  V.  Murray,  5  Johns.  Ch.  (N.Y.) 
522 ;  Cogswell  v.  Dolliver,  2  Mass.  217 ; 
Bass  V.  Bass,  6  Pick.  362;  Sanders  v. 
Sanders,  48  Ind.  84 ;  Harper  v.  Harper, 
57  Ind.  547;  Van  Swearingen  v.  Har- 
ris, 1  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  356.  As  to 
what  are  mutual  accounts  within  this 
rule,  see  Norton  r.  Larco,  30  Cal.  127, 
S.  C.  89  Am.  Dec.  70,  and  note.  The 
theory  is  "that  the  credits  are  mutual 
and  that  the  account  is  permitteil  to 
run  with  the  view  of  ultimate  adjust- 
ment by  a  settlement  and  payment  of 
the  balance."  Per  Earl,  J.,  in  Green 
V.  Disbrow,  79  N.  Y.  1,  9. 

*  Knight  r.  Knight  (Ind.  App.  Ct.), 
30  N.  E.  Rep.  421;  McKinney  r. 
Springer.  3  Ind.  59;  Wright  v.  Miller, 
63  Ind.  220. 


362 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  288 


their  relation  as  such.^  But,  where  an  account  is  "one-sided," 
and  not  an  open  mutual  account,  the  statute  runs  against  each 
item  from  its  date.'^  And  in  case  of  a  stated  account,  the  stat- 
ute runs  against  the  balance  from  the  time  it  is  stated.^ 

§  288.  Agents  and  fiduciaries. — The  statute  of  limitations 
runs  as  to  causes  of  action  against  agents  and  fiduciaries  gen- 
erally from  the  time  of  making  demand  upon  the  one  hand  * 
or  conversion  or  disavowal  of  the  agency  or  liability  upon  the 
other. ^  This  is  not,  however,  an  invariable  rule.^  Where  an 
agent  is  wrongfully  discharged  his  cause  of  action  for  the 
breach  of  contract  accrues  immediately,''  and  this  is  true,  even 
though  the  time  for  the  agent  to  enter  upon  the  performance 
of  his  duties  has  not  arrived,  if  the  principal  repudiates  the 
contract  and  informs  the  agent  that  it  is  no  longer  binding.^ 
Executors  are  technically  trustees  of  the  personal  property  of 
their  decedent,  and  can  not,  therefore,  as  against  the  benefici- 


1  McCain  v.  Peart,  145  Pa.  St.  516 ; 
Johnston  v.  McCain,  145  Pa.  St.  531, 
S.  C.  22  Atl.  Rep.  979;  Walker  v. 
Goodrich,  16  111.  341;  Noble  v.  Bel- 
lows, 53  Vt.  527;  Bathgate  t;.  Haskin, 
59  N.  Y.  533 ;  Eliot  v.  Lawton,  7  Allen 
(Mass.),  274. 

»Todd  V.  Todd,  15  Ala.  743;  Buntin 
V.  Lagow,  1  Blackf.  373;  Reeves  v. 
Herr,  59  111.  81 ;  Harrison  v.  Hall,  8 
Mo.  App.  167;  Bennett  v.  Davis,  1  N. 
H.  19;  Kimball  v.  Brown,  7  Wend. 
322;  Fitzpatrick  v.  Phelan's  Estate, 
58  Wis.  250;  Perrill  v.  Nichols,  89 
Ind.  444. 

'Union  Bank  v.  Knapp,  3  Pick. 
(Mass.)  96,  S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  181; 
Schall  V.  Eisner,  59  Ga.  190;  Wood  on 
Limitations,  §  280.  So,  where  the 
question  of  the  balance  is  submitted 
to  a  referee,  the  statute  runs  from  the 
referee's  finding.  Moore  v.  Greene  Co. 
Comrs.,  87  N.  Car.  209. 

♦  Judah  V.  Dyott,  3  Blackf.  324,  S.  C. 


25  Am.  Dec.  112;  Jones  v.  Gregg,  71 
Ind.  84 ;  Dodds  v.  Vannoy,  61  Ind.  89 ; 
Langsdale  v.  Woollen,  99  Ind.  575; 
Rathbun  v.  Ingals,  7  Wend.  320;  Tay- 
lor ??.  Bates,  5  Cow.  376 ;  Krause  -y .  Dor- 
rance,  10  Pa.  St.  462,  S.  C.  51  Am.  Dec. 
496;  Whitehead  v.  Wells,  29  Ark.  99; 
Mandeville  v.  Welch,  5  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 
277. 

^Spencer  v.  Morgan,  5  Ind.  146; 
Ferguson  v.  Dunn,  28  Ind.  58;  Love 
V.  Hoss,  62  Ind.  255 ;  Ward  v.  Harvey, 
111  Ind.  471;  Cunningham  v.  Mc- 
Kindley,  22  Ind.  149;  Gisborn  v. 
Charter  Oak  Life  Ins.Co.,  142  U.  S.  326. 

®  See  Mechem  on  Agency,  §  533 ; 
Clark  V.  Moody,  17  Mass.  145;  Jett  v. 
Hempstead,  25  Ark.  462. 

^  Mechem  on  Agency,  §  624. 

8  Howard  v.  Daly,  61  N.  Y.  362,  S. 
C.  19  Am.  Rep.  285;  Dugan  v.  Ander- 
son, 36  Md.  567,  S.  C.  11  Am.  Rep. 
509 ;  Danube  &  Black  Sea  R'y  Co.  v. 
Xenos,  13  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  825. 


§  289  TIME    OF    BKINOIN(;    THE    ACTION.  363 

aries,  set  up  the  statute  of  limitations  in  bar  of  the  latter 's 
claims,  so  long  as  such  relation  exists.^  So,  a  guardian  stands 
in  the  relation  of  trustee  to  the  ward  and  the  statute  does  not 
begin  to  run  as  to  guardianship  accounts  until  that  relation  is 
terminated.'^ 

§  289.  Contracts  generally. — A  cause  of  action  for  breach  of 
a  contract  accrues  at  the  time  the  contract  is  broken.'^  When 
no  time  is  fixed  for  the  termination  of  services  or  the  payment 
for  such  services,  but  the  work  is  all  done  under  one  contract, 
the  statute  of  limitations  will  not  begin  to  run  until  the  work 
is  ended;'*  but  where  personal  property  is  sold  and  nothing  is 
said  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  payment,  the  law  implies  a 
cash  payment  at  the  time  of  delivery,  and  the  statute  com- 
mences to  run  at  that  time.-''  A  contract  partly  in  writing  and 
partly  in  parol  is  regarded  as  a  parol  contract,  and  the  action 
must  be  brought  within  the  time  limited  for  bringing  actions 
upon  parol  contracts.^  On  contracts  of  indemnity  the  general 
rule  is  that  the  statute  begins  to  run  from  the  time  the  obligee 
or  promisee  actually  pays  the  money  or  damages,  and  not  from 
the  date  of  the  contract.'^  But  much  will  depend  upon  the 
terms  of  the  obligation.^     A  cause  of  action  upon  an  implied 

'Norris'    Appeal,    71   Pa.    St.    106;  9  Gray  (Mass.),  60.    Compare  Davis  t>. 

Ward  V.  Reeder,  2  li.  &  M.(Md.)  145;  Gorton,  16  N.  Y.  255. 

Arden  v.  Arden,  1  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  *  Rous  v.  Walden,  82  Ind.  238;  Ben- 

314.  jamin  on  Sales,  §§  617,  706. 

"Taylor  V.  Kilgore,  33  Ala.  214;  Al-  «  Hackleman  v.  Board,  94  Ind.  36; 

ston  V.  Alston,  34  Ala.  15;  Kimball  v.  Board  r.  Shipley,  77  Ind.  553. 

Ives,  17  Vt.  430;  Mathes  v.  Bennett,  '  Colvin  v.  Buckle,  8  M.  &  W.  680; 

21   N.  H.  204;    Nunnery   v.  Day,   64  Collinge  v.  Haywood,  1  P.  &  D.  502; 

Miss.  457.  Jones  r.  Trimble,  3  Rawle  (Pa.),  381 ; 

3  Arnold  r.  Blabon,  147  Pa.  St.  372,  Piatt  r.  Smith,  14  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  368; 

S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  575;    Middletown  v.  Rodman  v.  Iledden,  10  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

Newport  Hospital,  16  R.  I.  319,  S.  C.  498;  Hall  v.  Thayer,  12  Mete.  (Mass.) 

1  L.  R.  A.  191.  130. 

*  Graves  v.  Pemberton,  3  Ind.  App.  ^  See  Kirby  v.  Studebaker,  15  Ind.45 ; 

Ct.  71,  8.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  177;  O'Brien  Anderson  r.  Washabaugh,  43  Pa.  St. 

r.  Sexton,  140  111.  517,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  115;  Roberts  r.  Riddle,  79Pa.  St.  468; 

Tl.  461;    Jones  r.  Lewis,  11  Tex.  359.  Vanderkemp  r.  Shelton,  11  Paige  (N. 

See,  also,  Wilkinson  v.  Johnston,  83  Y.),  28;  Thomas  r.  Croft,  2  Rich.  (So. 

Texas,  392,  18S.  W.  R.  740;  Schock  v.  Car.)  113;  Bank  of  South  Carolina  v. 

Garrett,  69  Pa.  St.  144;  Hall  f.  Wood,  Knotts,  10  Rich.  (So.  Car.)  543. 


364  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  290 

contract  for  money  had  and  received,  as  where  there  is  an  over- 
payment by  mistake,  generally  accrues  immediately  upon  the 
payment  and  receipt  of  the  money. ^  But  where  money  is  paid 
upon  a  contract  incapable  of  enforcement  under  the  statute  of 
frauds  because  not  in  Avriting,  the  statute  of  limitations  does 
not  begin  to  run,  as  against  an  action  to  recover  it,  until  the 
other  party  refuses  to  perform  his  part  of  the  contract,  or  does 
some  act  clearly  evincing  an  intention  to  rescind  it.^ 

§  290.  Contribution.— As  a  general  rule,  the  right  of  a  surety 
to  contribution  from  a  co-surety  accrues  when  the  amount 
necessary  to  discharge  the  joint  liability  is  paid  and  not  at  the 
time  the  obligation  was  entered  into  or  the  principal  became 
liable;^  but  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  surety  makes  par- 
tial payments  upon  the  debt  secured,  the  statute  begins  to  run. 
on  each  payment  after  he  has  paid  more  than  his  proportion 
of  the  debt  from  the  time  such  payment  is  made.*  Where  a 
partner  has  paid  a  debt  of  the  firm  out  of  his  individual  means, 
the  statute  does  not  begin  to  run  against  his  claim  for  contri- 
bution until  a  settlement  between  the  partners.^ 

§  291.  Conversion. — In  an  action  for  the  conversion  of 
property  the  statute  begins  to  run  at  the  time  of  the  conver- 

1  Bank  V.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  (U.  S.)  32;  '  Werborn  v.  Kahn,  93  Ala.  201,  S. 
Leather  Man'f  rs  Bank  v.  Merchants'  C.  9  So.  Rep.  729;  Scott  v.  Nichols,  27 
Bank,  128  U.  S.  26,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  Miss.  94,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  503,  and 
3;  Schultzr.  Board,  95  Ind. 323;  Ware  note;  Camp  v.  Bostwick,  20  Ohio  St. 
r.' State,  74  Ind.  181 ;  Shelburn  v.  Rob-  337 ;  Preslar  v.  Stallworth,  37  Ala.  402 ; 
inson,  8  111.  597 ;  Sturgis  v.  Preston,  134  Conn  v.  Coburn,  7  N.  H.  368,  S.  C.  26 
Mass.  372;  Campbell  v.  Roe,  32  Neb.  Am.  Dec.  746;  May  v.  Vann,  15  Fla. 
345,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  452;  Clarke  v.  553;  Norton  v.  Hall,  41  Vt.  471;  Ben- 
Dutcher,  9  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  674;  St.  John  nett  v.  Cobb,  45  N.  Y.  268;  Singleton 
V.  Coates,  63  Ilun  (N.  Y.),460.  Com-  v.  Townsend,  45  Mo.  379;  Crosby  v. 
pare  Merchants'  Bank  v.  First  Nat.  Wyatt,  23  Me.  156. 
Bank,  4  Hughes  (U.  S.),  1;  Sharkey  *Bushnell  v.  Bushnell,  77  Wis.  435, 
V.  Mansfield,  90  N.  Y.  227;  Glasscock  S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  411.  See,  also,  Bul- 
V.  Rosengrant,  55  Ark.  376,  S.  C.  18  S.  lock  v.  Campbell,  9  Gill,  182;  Butler 
W.  R.  379;  Johnson  v.  Rutherford,  10  v.  Wright,  20  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  367;  Da- 
Pa.  St.  455.  vies  v.  Humphreys,  6  M.  &  W.  153. 

'  Collins  V.  Thayer,  74  111.  138 ;  Cairo,  *  McDonald  v.  Holmes,  22  Ore.  212, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Parks,  32  Ark.  131.  S.  C.  29  Pac.  Rep.  735. 


§  291  TiMK  OK  i!KiN(;iN<;  Tin-:  action.  30.") 

sion.  It  is  sometimes  difficult,  however,  to  determine  just 
when  the  conversion  took  place.  Where  the  original  taking 
is  wrongful  the  cause  of  action  accrues  at  once  and  the  statute 
begins  to  run  immediately;'  hut  when  the  possession  of  the 
defendant  is  rightful  the  statute  does  not  begin  to  run  until 
•  'I'  I  land  and  refusal  or  some  other  act  sufficient  to  constitute  a 
ersion.'^  Thus,  where  wine  was  not  of  the  quality  ordered 
.1  1  the  buyer  refused  to  accept  it  but  took  it  from  the  carrier 
and  stored  it  in  his  cellar,  subject  to  the  order  of  the  vendor, 
and,  some  time  after  the  death  of  the  buyer,  his  successor  in 
business  sold  the  wine,  thus  converting  it  to  liis  own  use,  it 
was  held  tliat  the  statute  did  not  begin  to  run  until  the  time 
of  the  conversion  by  the  sale.-^  So,  where  the  owner  of  bowlders 
had  deposited  them  upon  his  own  lot,  and,  by  reason  of  a 
change  of  grade  by  the  city  they  were  covered  up,  it  was  held, 
in  an  action  for  conversion  after  he  had  sought  to  remove  them 
and  had  been  forbidden  to  do  so  by  the  city  officials,  that  his 
cause  of  action  accrued  when  he  was  forbidden  to  remove  them 
and  the  statute  did  not  begin  to  run  until  that  time.^  But 
actual  demand  or  refusal  is  not  always  necessary  even  when 
the  original  taking  was  rightful.  An  unlawful  sale  or  disposi- 
tion of  property  rightfully  in  possession  may  of  itself  consti- 
tute a  conversion,  and  when  such  is  the  case  the  statute  will 
run  from  the  time  of  the  unlawful  act.^ 

'  Harpending  v.  Meyer,  55  Cal.  555;  Slaymaker  v.  "Wilson,  1  R.,  P.  &  W. 

Eead  v.  Markle,  3  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  523 ;  (Pa.)  216. 

Waller  v.  Bowling,  108  N.  Car.  289,  S.  »  Bishplinghoff  v.  Bauer,  52  Ind.  519. 

C.  12  L.  R.  A.  261 ;  Brashier  r.  Tolleth,  *  City  of  P:igin  v.  Goff,  38  111.  App. 

31  Neb.  622,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  Rep.  398;  362. 

Rosum  V.  Hodges  (S.  Dak.),  9  L.  R.  *  Dench   v.  "Walker,    14  Mass.  500; 

A.  817 ;  Velsian  v.  Lewis,  15  Ore.  539 ;  Melville  v.  Brown,  15  ^lass.  82 ;  Coffey 

Armacost   v.    Lindley,  116  Ind.  295;  r.  AVilkerson,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  101,     See, 

Baker  I'.  Lothrop,  155  Mass.  376,  S.  C.  also.  Branch  v.  Planters'  L.&  S.  Bank, 

29  N.  E.  Rep.  643;  Clink  v.  Gunn,  90  75  Ga.  342;    Gordon  v.  Stoekdale,  89 

Mich.  135,  S.  C.  51  N.  "W.  Rep.  193.  Ind.  240;    Hollins  v.  Fowler,  L.  R.,  7 

'Giles  V.    Merritt,   59  N.    H.  325;  II.    L.   757;     JeEt'ersonville   R.    R.    r. 

Wilton  V.  Girdlestone,  5  B.  &  A.  847;  White,  6  Bush   (Ky.).251;    Lane  v. 

Spackman  V.   Foster,  31  W.   R.  548;  Cameron,  38  Wis.  603;    Ray  r.  Tubbs, 

Waldron  v.  Alexander,  35  111.   App.  50Vt.  688;  Freeman  i'.  Boland,  14  R. 

319;    Torian  v.  McClure,  S3  Ind.  310;  I.  39. 


366 


THE    WOllK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  292 


§  292.  Corporations. — The  statute  of  limitations  generally 
applies  to  private  corporations  the  same  as  to  natural  persons. 
It  also  applies  to  municipal  corporations  in  what  may  be  termed 
their  private  capacity;^  but  it  does  not  apply  to  such  corpora- 
tions, according  to  the  weight  of  authority  and  reason,  in  their 
sovereign  or  public  capacity.'^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  an 
individual  can  not  acquire  title  to  a  city  street  by  mere  adverse 
possession,^  and  where  there  is  no  special  statute  limiting  the 
time  for  enforcing  an  assessment  the  general  statute  does  not 
apply. ^  But  a  municipality  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the 
statute  the  same  as  an  individual."^ 

§  293.  Fraud — Concealment. — The  general  rule  in  equity  is 
that  in  case  of  fraud  the  statute  of  limitations  does  not  begin, 
to  run  until  it  is  discovered  or  might  have  been  discovered  by 
the  exercise  of  reasonable  diligence.^     There  are  statutory  pro- 


1  Burlington  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  41  la.  134 ; 
Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  U.  S.  668 ; 
Mowry  v.  Providence,  10  R.  1. 52 ;  May 
V.  School  Dist.,  22  Neb.  205,  S.  C.  3 
Am.  St.  R.  266 ;  Gaines  v.  Hot  Springs 
Co.,  39  Ark.  262;  Western  Lunatic 
Asylum  v.  Miller,  29  W.  Va.  326,  S.  C. 
6  Am.  St.  R.  644;  Forsyth  v.  Wheel- 
ing, 19  W.  Va.  318 ;  Cincinnati  v.  Ev- 
ans, 5  Ohio  St.  594 ;  Cooper  v.  Detroit, 
42  Mich.  584. 

^  Sims  V.  City  of  Frankfort,  79  Ind. 
446;  City  of  Visalia  v.  Jacob,  65  Cal. 
434,  S.  C.  6  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas. 
115 ;  Reed  v.  Mayor,  92  Ala.  339,  S.  C. 
33  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  469 ;  Vicks- 
burg  V.  Marshall,  59  Miss.  563 ;  Driggs 
V.  Phillips,  103  N.  Y.  77;  Coleman  v. 
Thurmond,  56  Texas,  514;  Jersey  City 
V.  State,  30  N.  J.  L.  521 ;  Philadelphia 
V.  Phila.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  253 ; 
Simplot  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16 
Fed.  R.  350;  Sims  v.  Chattanooga,  2 
Lea  (Tenn.),  694.  Contra,  City  of 
WheeUng  v.  Campbell,  12  W.  Va.  36; 
City  of  Ft.  Smith  v.  McKibbin,  41  Ark. 
45;  Beardslee  v.  French,  7  Conn.  125  ; 


Cincinnati  v.  Evans,  5  Cl.loSt.  594; 
Pella  V.  Scholte,  24  la.  283 ;  Dudley  v. 
Frankfort,  12  B.  Mor.  (Ky.)  610;  City 
of  Richmond  v.  Poe,  24  Gratt.  (Va.) 
149;  City  of  Galveston  v.  Menard,  2S 
Texas,  349. 

'Moose  v.  Carson,  104  N.  Car.  431, 
S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R.  681 ;  Hoadley  v, 
San  Francisco,  50  Cal.  265;  Sims  v. 
City  of  Frankfort,  79  Ind.  446 ;  Cheek 
V.  City,  92  Ind.  107 ;  Com.  v.  Moore- 
head,  118  Pa.  St.  344,  S.  C.  4  Am.  St. 
R.  599 ;  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets, 
666,  669. 

*  Dist.  of  Columbia  v.  Washington  & 
G.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Mackey,  361 ;  Magee 
V.  Com.,  46  Pa.  St.  358;  Eschbach  v. 
Pitts,  6  Md.  71 ;  Pease  v.  Howard,  14 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  479;  State  Bank  v. 
Brown,  1  Scam.  (111.)  106. 

°  Lancaster  County  v.  Brenthall,  29 
Pa.  St.  38;  Gaines  v.  Hot  Springs  Co., 
39  Ark.  262;  Arapahoe  Village  v.  Al- 
bee,  24  Neb.  242,  S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  R. 
202;  Clark  v.  Iowa  City,  20  Wall.  583. 

^  "In  suits  in  equity,"  says  Mr.  Jus- 
tice Miller,  in  Bailey  v.   Glover,   21 


§293 


TIME    OF    BKIN(;iN(;    TIHC    ACTION. 


367 


visions  to  the  same  effect  in  many  of  the  States,  making  tlie 
rule  at  law  the  same  as  in  equity/  although  in  some  of  the 
States  the  cause  of  action  must  be  concealed  in  order  to  postpone 
the  running  of  the  statute  until  discovery.'^  In  the  absence  of 
any  statute  changing  the  rule,  a  majority  of  the  courts  have 
applied  the  rule  in  equity  to  actions  at  law,  at  least  where  there 
has  been  a  fraudulent  concealment  of  the  cause  of  action  by 
the  defendant.^ 


Wall.(U.  S.)  342,  347,  "where  relief  is 
sought  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  the  au- 
thorities are  without  conflict  in  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  that  where  the 
ignorance  of  the  fraud  has  heen  pro- 
duced hy  atiirmative  acts  of  the  guilty- 
party  in  concealing  tlie  facts  from  the 
other,  the  statute  will  not  bar  relief, 
provided  suit  is  brought  within  proper 
time  after  the  discovery  of  the  fraud. 
We  also  think  that  in  suits  in  equity 
the  decided  weight  of  authority  is  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  that  where 
the  party  injured  by  the  fraud  remains 
in  ignorance  of  it  without  any  fault  or 
want  of  diligence  or  care  on  his  part, the 
bar  of  the  statute  does  not  begin  to  run 
until  the  fraud  is  discovered,  though 
there  be  no  special  circumstances  or 
efforts  on  the  part  of  the  party  com- 
mitting the  fraud  to  conceal  it  from 
the  knowledge  of  the  other  party." 
To  the  same  effect  are  Booth  v.  Lord 
Warrington,  1  Brown's  Pari.  Cas.  445; 
Hovenden  ?'.  Lord  Aimesley,  2  Sch.& 
Lef.  629;  Stearns  v.  Page,  7  How.  (U. 
S.)  819;  Snodgrass  v.  Bank  of  Deca- 
tur, 25  Ala.  161,  S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec.  505 ; 
Quimby  v.  Blackey,  63  N.  H.  77;  2 
Pom.  Eq.,  §  017,  note  3 ;  Gillett  v.  Wi- 
ley, 126  111.  310,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R.  587 ; 
Peck  V.  Bank,  16  R.  I.  710,  S.  C.  19  Atl. 
R.  369. 

'  See  Manufacturers'  Bank  r.  Perry, 
144  Mass.  313;  13  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency. 
of  Law,  728,  note  2. 

Churchman  v.  City  of  Indianapolis, 


110  Ind.  259 ;  Jackson  v.  Buchanan,  59 
Ind.  390;  Ware  v.  State,  74  Ind.  181; 
Wynne  v.  Cornelison,  52  Ind.  312. 
As  to  what  is  sufficient  evidence  of 
concealment  under  such  a  statute, 
see  Smith  v.  Blair,  133  Ind.  367,  S.  C. 
32  N.  E.  R.  1123;  State  v.  Furlong,  60 
Miss.  839.  See,  also,  Boomer  r.  French, 
40  Iowa,  601 ;  Hudson  v.  Wheeler,  34 
Texas,  366;  Purdon  v.  Seligman,  78 
Mich.  132,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1045 ;  At- 
lantic Bank  v.  Harris,  118  Mass.  147; 
Nudd  V.  Hamblin,  8  Allen{Mass.),  1.30. 
The  last  two  cases  from  the  same  court 
are  especially  valuable  upon  this  point, 
for  in  the  former  it  was  held  that  there 
was  a  fraudulent  concealment,  and  in 
the  latter  that  there  was  not,  the  facts, 
of  course,  being  different. 

*  First  Mass.  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Field,  3 
Mass.  201,  S.C.  3  Am.  Dec.  124 ;  Welles 
V.  Fish,  3  Pick.(]\Iass.)  74;  Farnam  i\ 
Brooks,  9  Pick.  (Mass.)  212;  Duffittr. 
Tuhan,  28  Kan.  292 ;  Yniestra  r.  Tarle- 
ton,  67  Ala.  126;  Cole  v.  McGlathry, 
9  Me.  131 ;  Douglas  v.  Elkins,  28  N. 
H.'26;  Harrisburg  v.  Forster,  8  Watts 
(Pa.),  12;  Morgan  r.Tener,  S3  Pa.  St. 
305 ;  Jones  v.  Conoway,  4  Yeates(Pa.), 
109;  Campbell  v.  Vining,  23  111.  525; 
Raymonds.  Simonson,  4  Blackf.  85; 
Andrews  v.  Smithwick,  34  Texas,  544; 
:\Ic Alpine  r.  Hedges,  21  Fed.  R.  689; 
Traer  r.  Clews,  115  U.  S.  528,  S.  C.  6 
Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  155 ;  Snodgrass  v.  Branch 
Bank,  25  Ala.  161,  S.  C.  60  Am.  Dec. 
505,  and  noie.   Contra,  Troup  v.  Smith, 


368 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT, 


§  295 


§  294.  Judgments. — In  the  case  of  a  judgment  the  statute  of 
limitations  ordinarily  begins  to  run  at  the  time  the  judgment  is 
rendered/  and  it  has  been  held  that  where  there  is  a  nunc  pro 
tunc  entry  the  statute  runs  from  the  date  of  the  actual  rendition 
of  the  judgment  and  not  from  the  date  as  of  which  it  is  ren- 
dered.^  Under  some  statutes  a  judgment  is  considered  as  ren- 
dered only  when  it  is  entered  of  record.^ 

§  295.  Negligence. — In  cases  of  negligence  where  the  cause  of 
action  is  the  breach  of  duty  and  resulting  damage  or  injury,  and 
not  the  mere  breach  of  duty,  it  does  not  accrue,  and  the  statute 
does  not  begin  to  run  until  the  time  of  the  injury  or  damage.* 
Thus,  in  an  action  for  damages  for  personal  injuries  caused  by 
a  falling  bridge,  it  was  held  that  the  mere  negligent  act  of 
constructing  an  unsafe  bridge,  committed  thirteen  years  be- 
fore, gave  no  cause  of  action,  and  that  the  statute  did  not  be- 
gin to  run  until  the  injury  was  received.^     But  in  cases  of  torts 


20  Johns.  (N.Y.)  33;  Callis  v.  Waddy, 
2Munf.  (Va.)  511;  Miles  v.  Berry,  1 
Hill  (So.  Car.),  296  (but  see  Harrell 
V.  Kelly,  2  McCord,  426)  ;  York  v. 
Bright,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  312;  EUis 
V.  Kelso,  18  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  296.  "We 
are  of  the  opinion,"  says  Mr.  Justice 
Miller,  in  Bailey  v.  Glover,  21  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  342,  349,  "that  the  weight  of 
judicial  authority,  both  in  this  country 
and  in  England,  is  in  the  application 
of  the  rule  to  suits  at  law,  as  well  as 
to  suits  in  equity.  And  we  are  also 
of  the  opinion  that  this  is  founded  in 
a  sound  and  philosophical  view  of  the 
principles  of  the  statutes  of  limita- 
tion." 

•  Dieffenbach  v.  Roch,  112  N.Y.  621 ; 
Mawhinney  v.  Doane,  40  Kan.  676; 
Dabney  v.  Shelton,  82  Va.  349. 

« Borer  v.  Chapman,  119  U.  S.  587, 
S.  C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  342.  See,  also.  Tap- 
ley  V.  Goodsell,  122  Mass.  176;  An- 
derson V.  ^litchell,  58  Ind.  592;  Gray 
V.  Palmer,  28  Cal.416;  Genella?^.  Rel- 


yea,  32  Cal.  159.  Compare  Trenouth 
V.  Farrington,  54  Cal.  273;  Coon  v. 
Grand  Lodge,  76  Cal.  354,  S.  C.  18  Pac. 
R.  384;  Credit  Co.  v.  Arkansas,  etc., 
Co.,  128  U.  S.  258. 

^  Crim  V.  Kessing,  89  Cal.  478,  S.  C. 
23  Am.  St.  R.  491 ;  Condee  v.  Barton, 
62  Cal.  1 ;  ^tna  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hesser, 
77  Iowa,  381,  S.  C.  14  Am.  St.  R.  297; 
Whitwell  &  Hoover  v.  Emory,  3  Mich. 
84,  S.  C.  59  Am.  Dec.  220,  222. 

*  Whitehouse  v.  Fellowes,  9  C.  B.  (N. 
S.)  901 ;  Jones  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co., 
74  Me.  356;  Backhouse  v.  Bonomi,  9 
H.  of  L.  Cas.  503;  Goff  v.  Pawtucket, 
13  R.  I.  471. 

^  Board  of  Com'rs  v.  Pearson,  120 
Ind.  426,  S.  C.  16  Am.  St.  R.  325.  Two 
things  must,  as  a  general  rule,  concur 
to  give  a  complete  right  of  action ;  1, 
a  breach  of  duty  owing  to  the  plaintiff ; 
2,  damage  to  the  plaintiff.  City  of 
North  Vernon  v.Voegler,  103  Ind.  314 ; 
Diebold  v.  Penna.,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  J. 
L.  478;  Mannings.  Chesapeake,  etc., 


§  290 


TiMK  OF   i;itiX(;iN(i  Till':  action. 


3G0 


quasi  ex  contractu,  where  the  gist  of  the  action  is  the  negligent 
breach  of  duty  and  not  the  injury  resulting  therefrom,  the 
statute  begins  to  run  from  the  time  of  the  negligent  breach  of 
duty.'  Thus,  where  the  defendui.t  had  agreed  to  remove  his 
goods  from  a  warehouse,  but  negligently  failed  to  do  so,  and 
by  reason  thereof  the  plaintiff,  several  years  afterwards,  was 
-compelled  to  pay  damages  to  one  to  whom  he  had  sold  the 
warehouse,  it  was  held  that  the  cause  of  action  accrued  when 
the  defendant  neglected  to  remove  the  goods,  and  not  when  the 
plaintiff  had  to  pay  the  damages.^ 

§  296.  Nuisance. — Each  day's  continuance  of  a  public  nui- 
sance is  an  indictable  offense,  and  no  right  to  maintain  it  can 
be  acquired  by  prescription.^  But  an  action  for  damages  caused 
by  a  private  nuisance  is  within  the  statute,  and  when  the  nui- 
sance is  permanent  and  is  at  its  creation  productive  of  all  the 
damage  that  can  ever  result  from  it,  all  damages  must  be  re- 
covered in  one  action,  and  the  statute  of  limitations  begins  to 
run  as  soon  as  it  is  created.^     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  nui- 


Co.  (W.  Va.),  16  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  271 ; 
Rediganr.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  155  Mass. 
44,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1133;  Reardonv. 
Thompson,  149  Mass.  267;  Parker  v. 
Publishing  Co.,  69  Me.  173;  Pliimmer 
V.  Dill,  156  Mass.  426,  S.  C.  31  N.  E. 
R.128;  Larmoret'.  Iron  Co.,  101  N.Y. 
391 ;  Woolrine's  Adm'rt\  Chesapeake, 
etc.,  Co.,  36  W.  Ya.  329,  S.  C.  15  S.  E. 
R.  81 ;  Gillis  v.  Penna.  Co.,  59  Pa.  St. 
129;  Schmidt  v.  Bauer,  80  Cal.  565; 
Nicholson  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  41  N.  Y. 
525 ;  State,  ex  rel.  Travelers  Ins.  Co.,  v. 
Harris,  89  Ind.  3()3,  366;  Cooley  on 
Torts,  660;  Elliott  on  Roads  and 
Streets,  503;  1  SutluThuul  on  Dam- 
ages, §  3. 

'  Northrop  v.  Hill,  61  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
136;  Northrop  v.  Hill,  57N.  Y.  351; 
Ellis  V.  Kelso,  18  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  296; 
Gustin  r.  Jefferson  County,  'l5  Iowa, 
158;  Lathrop  r.  Snellbaker,  6  Ohio  St. 
276;  Brown  c.  Howard,  4  Moore,  508; 

24 


Howell  V.  Young,  5  B.  &  C.  259;  Cook 
V.  Rives,  13  S.  &  M.  328;  Raynor  v. 
Mintzer,  72  Cal.  585. 

"^  ^M'Kerras  v.  Gardner,  3  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  137. 

^  State  V.  Berdetta,  73  Ind.  185 ;  Peo- 
ple v.  Cunningham,  1  Denio  (N.  Y.), 
524;  Com.  v.  Upton,  6  Gray  (^lass.), 
473 ;  Queen  v.  Brewster,  8  Upper  Can. 
C.  P.  208 ;  Cross  v.  Mayor,  18  N.  J. 
Eq.  305. 

*  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McAuley, 
121  111.  160;  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Loeb,  118  111.  203 ;  Troy  v.  Cheshire  R. 
R.  Co.,  23  N.  H.  83,  S.'c.  55  Am.  Dec. 
177 ;  Powers  v.  Council  Bluffs,  45  Iowa, 
652,  S.  C.  24  Am.  R.  792;  Bizer  i\  Ot- 
tumwa  Hydraulic,  etc.,  Co.,  70  Iowa, 
145;  Krueger  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  51  Mich.  142;  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  39  Ark.  463, 
S.  C.  43  Am.  R.  280;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.  V.  Morris,  35  Ark.  622;  Kan- 


370 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT, 


§297 


sance  is  transient  in  its  character  or  permanent  but  not  neces- 
sarily injurious  in  such  a  way  that  damages  can  be  recovered 
once  for  all,  that  is  to  say,  if  its  continuance  gives  rise  to  a 
new  cause  of  action  from  time  to  time,  the  statute  begins  to 
run  as  to  each  successive  new  cause  of  action  from  the  time  it 
accrues,  and  not  necessarily  from  the  date  of  the  creation  of 
the  original  nuisance.^  The  distinction  above  stated  is  sup- 
ported by  the  authorities,  but  the  line  is  not  very  clearly  de- 
fined and  in  the  application  of  the  law  to  particular  facts  .the 
authorities  are  not  altogether  harmonious.^ 

§  297.  Eeal  property. — It  is  well  settled  that,  in  the  absence 
of  actual  adverse  possession,  the  possession  of  real  property 
follows  the  title, ^  and  the  rightful  owner  of  land  is  therefore 
deemed  to  be  in  possession  until  he  is  disseized  or  ousted  there- 
from. Hence,  it  follows  that  mere  lapse  of  time,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  adverse  possession  or  circumstances  constituting  an 
estoppel,  will  not  bar  an  action  by  the  true  owner.*     The  statute 


sas  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mihlman,  17  Kan. 
224;  City  of  Lafayette  v.  Nagle,  113 
Ind.  425. 

'McConnel  v.  Kibbe,  29  111.  483; 
Fell  V.  Bennett,  110  Pa.  St.  181 ;  Stad- 
ler  V.  Grieben,  61  Wis.  500;  Athens 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Rucker,  80  Ga.  291;  Har- 
back  V.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  80 
Iowa,  593 ;  Miller  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  63  Iowa,  680;  Valley  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Franz,  43  Ohio  St.  623 ;  Inhabitants  of 
New  Salem  v.  Eagle  Mill  Co.,  138  Mass. 
8;  Culvert;.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 38 
Mo.  App.  130;  Colrick  v.  Swinburne, 
105  N.  Y.  503 ;  Reed  v.  State,  108  N.  Y. 
407 ;  Reid  v.  City  of  Atlanta,  73  Ga. 
523;  Werges  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  35  La.  Ann.  641;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.  V.  Biggs,  52  Ark.  240,  S.  C.  20 
Am.  St.  R.  174. 

*  See  and  compare  City  of  North 
Vernon  ■».  Voegler,  103  Ind.  314,  and 
Uline  V.  N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co.,  101 
N.  Y.  98;  1  Sutherland  on  Damages, 


§§  114,  116,  and  Mr.  Starr's  article  on 
Prospective  Damages,  in  26  Am.  L. 
Reg.  (N.  S.)  281,  345. 

3  Bradley  v.  West,  60  Mo.  33;  Rob- 
inson V.  Lake,  14  Iowa,  421,  424; 
Chance  v.  Branch,  58  Texas,  490;  La 
Frombois  v.  Jackson,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
589;  United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6 
Peters  (IT.  S.),691;  Mclver  t?.  Kyger, 
3  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  53. 

*  Norton  v.  Sanders,  1  Dana  (Ky.), 
14;  Smiths.  McCall,  2 Humph. (Tenn.) 
163;  Davis  t).  Young,  36  La.  Ann.  374; 
Cholmondeley  v.  Clinton,  2  Jac.  &  W. 
1 ;  Sedgw.  &  Wait  on  Tr.  of  Tit.  to 
Land,  §  730;  Buswell  on  Lim.  and 
Adv.  Possession,  §  227.  But  where 
the  statute  of  limitations  expressly  re- 
quires the  action  to  be  brought  within 
twenty  years  after  the  cause  of  action 
accrued,  it  has  been  held  that  twenty 
years'  possession  is  sufficient  to  bar 
the  action,  although  not  adverse  nor 
under  claim  of  title.  Vanduyn  v.  Hep- 


§297 


TIME    OF    BRINGING    THE    ACTION. 


371 


begins  to  run  at  tlie  time  of  the  ouster  of  the  true  owner.'  It 
runs  from  the  accrual  of  a  right  of  entry,  and  the  action  to  re- 
cover possession  of  the  land  must  be  brouglit  within  the  stat- 
utory period  after  the  right  of  entry  accrued.^  Adverse  pos- 
session, continuous  and  uninterrupted,  for  the  statutory  period 
is  not  only  a  good  defense  to  an  action  for  the  recovery  of  the 
land,-''  but,  in  most  jurisdictions,  it  also  gives  the  claimant  a 
good  title,  sufficient  to  support  ejectment  even  as  against  the 
holder  of  the  paper  title  who  has  entered  upon  the  land  and 
ousted  the  claimant  after  the  expiration  of  the  statutory  period 
of  adverse  possession  by  the  latter.'*  Although  the  adverse 
possession  must  be  continuous  and  uninterrupted,  it  is  imma- 
terial whether  it  be  held  for  the  entire  period  by  one  person  or 
by  several  persons  in  succession,  provided  there  is  a  "unity  of 
possessions,"  or,  in  other  words,  a  privity  of  estate  or  title. ^ 


ner,  45  Ind.  589,  595,  citing  Nepean  v. 
Doe,  2  M.  &  W.  894,910;  Culley  v. 
Doe,  11  A.  &  E.  1008,  1015. 

'  Robinson  v.  Lake,  14  Iowa,  421, 
424;  Sedgw.  &  Wait  on  Tr.  of  Tit.  to 
Land,  §  730. 

«  Hogan  V.  Kurtz,  94  U.  S.  773,  775; 
Henderson  v.  Griffin,  5  Peters  (U.  S.) , 
151 ;  Diigan  v.  Follett,  100  111.  581 ; 
Wright  V.  Ticlienor,  104  Ind.  185. 

'  Herndon  v.  Wood,  2  A.  K.  Marsh. 
(Ky.)  44;  Hogan  v.  Kurtz,  94  U.  S. 
773 ;  Yard  v.  Ocean  Beach  Ass'n,  49  N. 
J.  Eq.  306,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  729 ;  Greene 
V.  Couse,  13  L.  R.  A.  206,  and  note; 
Frakes  v.  Elliott,  102  Ind.  47,  and  au- 
thorities cited  in  following  note. 

*  Cincinnati  v.  White,  6  Peters  (U. 
S.),  431 ;  Devacht  r.  Newsam,  3  Ohio, 
57;  Jackson  v.  Olitz,  8  AVond.  (N.  Y.) 
440;  Jackson  v.  Rightmyre,  16  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  314 ;  Gibson  r.  Bailey,  9  N.  H. 
168 ;  Jackson  r.  Dieffendorf,  3  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  269;  Hughes  v.  Graves,  39  Vt. 
359;  Phillips  v.  Kent,  23  N.  J.  L.  155; 
Riverside  Co.  v.  Townshend,  120111.  9, 
•JO;  Roots  i\  Beck.  109  Ind.  472;  Bow- 
on  ».  Swander,  121  Ind.  164;  Irey  v. 


Mater  (Ind.),  31  N.  E.  R.  69;  Sharon 
V.  Tucker,  144  U.  S.  533,  S.  C.  12  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  720. 

*  Riggs  r.  Fuller,  54  Ala.  141 ;  Ben- 
son V.  Stewart,  30  Miss.  49;  Schrack 
V.  Zubler,  34  Pa.  St.  38;  Coogler  v. 
Rogers,  25  Fla.  853,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  391 ; 
Haynes  ?'.  Boardman,  119  Mass.  414; 
Reformed  Church  v.  Schoolcraft,  65  N. 
Y.  134;  Faloon  r.  Simshauser,  130  111. 
649;  Weber  v.  Anderson,  73  111.  439; 
Sherin  v.  Brackett,  36  Minn.  152 ;  Jar- 
rett  V.  Stevens,  36  W.Va.  445,  S.  C.  15 
S.  E.  R.  177 ;  Vance  v.  Wood,  22  Ore. 
77,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  73;  Landon  v. 
Townshend,  129  N.  Y.  166,  S.  C.  29  N. 
E.  R.  71 ;  Whipple  v.  Earick  (Ky.),  19 
S.W.  R.  237 ;  Tiedeman  on  Real  Prop., 
§  714.  Where  there  is  no  jn-ivity  so 
that  the  successive  possessions  are  not 
under  the  same  right  and  can  not  all 
be  referred  to  the  original  entry,  the 
requisite  continuity  of  possession  is 
wanting.  San  Francisco  v.  Fulde,  37 
Cal.  353;  Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Philyaw.  88  Ala.  264,  S.  C.  6So.  R.  837 ; 
Jlelvin  i\  Proprietors  of  Ix)cks,  5  Mete. 
(Mass.)  15;  Smith  r.  Chapin,31  Conn. 


372 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  298 


§  298.  Trusts. — As  between  the  trustee  and  beneficiary,  the 
statute  of  limitations  does  not  run  against  express  continuing 
trusts,  so  long  as  the  trustee  does  not  disavow  the  trust;^  but 
resulting  or  implied  trusts  may  be  barred  by  lapse  of  time.^ 
And  even  in  the  case  of  a  direct  continuing  trust  the  statute  of 
limitations  or  laches  may  bar  relief  if  the  trustee  has  repudiated 
the  trust,  or  held  adverse  possession,  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
beneficiary.^  Nor  does  the  general  rule  apply  as  between  the 
trustee  or  beneficiary  and  a  stranger.  As  said  by  Lord  Hard- 
wicke:  "The  rule  that  the  statute  of  limitations  does  not  bar  a 
trust  estate  holds  only  between  cestui  que  trust  and  trustee,  not 
as  between  cestui  que  trust  and  trustee  on  one  side  and  strangers 
on  the  other;  for  that  would  make  the  statute  of  no  force  at 
all,  because  there  is  hardly  any  estate  of  consequence  without 
such  trust,  and  so  the  act  would  never  take  place.  Therefore, 
where  the  cestui  que  trust  and  his  trustee  are  both  out  of  pos- 


530;  Edmunds  V.  Griffin,  41  N.H.  529; 
Austin  V.  Rutland  R.  R.  Co.,  45Vt.  215 ; 
American  Bank  Note  Co.  ■«.  New  York 
Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  252; 
Jarrett  v.  Stevens,  36  W.  Va.  445,  S. 
C.  15  S.  E.  R.  177.  Compare  Davis  v. 
McArthur,  78  N.  Car.  357;  Scales  v. 
Cockrill,  3  Head  (Tenn.),  432. 

'  Gisborn  v.  Charter  Oak  Life  Ins. 
Co.,  142  U.  S.  326,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
277 ;  Riddle  ». Whitehill,  135  U.  S.  621, 
S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  924;  Luco  v.  De 
Toro,  91  Cal.  405,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1082 ; 
Cone  V.  Dunham,  59  Conn.  145,  S.  C. 
8  L.  R.  A.  647 ;  Nobles  v.  Hogg,  36  So. 
Car.  322,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  359;  Mullen 
V.  Doyle,  147  Pa.  St.  512,  S.  C.  23  Atl. 
R.807;  Ellis  V.Ward  (ni.),25N.  E.  R. 
530;  Hileman  v.  Hileman,  85  Ind.  1; 
Parks  V.  Satterthwaite,  132  Ind.  411, 
S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.82;  Gordon  v.  Small, 
53Md.550;  Wilson  v.  Green,  49  Iowa, 
251;  Clay«.  Clay,  7  Bush.  (Ky.)95; 
Bostwick  V.  Dickson,  65  Wis.  593; 
Miles  V.  Thorne,  38  Cal.  335,  S.  C.  99 
Am.  Dec.  384,  and  authorities  cited  in 


note  to  that  case ;  "Effect  of  Limitation 
on  Trusts,"  15  Fed.  R.  758,  761 ;  "Effect 
of  Limitations  on  Trustees,"  19  Am. 
Jur.  349. 

"^  Reynolds'^?.  Sumner,  126  111.  58,S.C. 
1  L.  R.  A.  327  ;  Parks  v.  Satterthwaite, 
132  Ind.  411 ,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  82 ;  Spei- 
del  V.  Henrici,  120  U.  S.  377,  S.  C.  7 
Sup.  Ct.  R.  610 ;  Logan  Co.  v.  Lincoln, 
81  111.  156 ;  Kane  tJ.  Bloodgood,7  Johns. 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  90,  S.  C.  11  Am.  Dec.  417 ; 
Price  V.  Mulford,  107  N.Y.  303 ;  Cooper 
V.  Cooper,  61  Miss.  676;  Harlow  v. 
Dehon,  111  Mass.  195;  Kennedy  v. 
Kennedy,  25  Kan.  151 ;  Landis  v. 
Saxton,  105  Mo.  486,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St. 
R.  403. 

3  Speidel  v.  Henrici,  120  U.  S.377,  S. 
C.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  610;  Hubbell  v.  Med- 
bury,  53  N.Y.  98 ;  Murdock  v.  Hughes, 
15  Miss.  219;  Thomas  v.  Merry,  113 
Ind.  83;  Ward  v.  Harvey,  111  Ind. 
471 ;  Davis  v.  Coburn,  128  Mass. 
377;  Merriam  v.  Hassam,  14  Allen 
(Mass.),  516;  Otto  v.  Schlapkahl,  57 
Iowa,  226 ;  Neel  v.  McElhenny,  69  Pa. 


§299 


TIMK    Ol'    i;UIX(ilX(i    TJII-;    ACTION, 


373 


session  for  the  tiino  limited,  the  party  in  possession  has  a  good 
bar  against  them  hoth."^ 

§  299.  What  law  governs. — Where,  as  in  most  cases,  the 
statute  of  limitations  merely  affects  the  remedy  and  does  not 
extinguish  the  right  of  action  itself,  the  law  of  the  forum  gov- 
erns;^ but  it  is  provided  by  statute  in  many  of  the  States  that 
if  the  cause  of  action  accrued  in  another  State  in  which  the  de- 
fendant resided,  and  is  fully  hari'cd  by  the  laws  of  that  State, 
such  bar  shall  constitute  a  good  defense  in  the  State  in  which 
the  action  is  tried. ^  So,  where  the  lex  loci  contractus  gives  title 
by  adverse  possession  and  completely  extinguishes  the  right 
itself,  it  will  constitute  a  bar  to  the  action  wherever  it  is 
brought.'*  The  same  principle  has  also  been  applied  to  cases 
in  which  a  statutory  right  is  given,  which  was  unknown  to 
the  common  law.     It  is  held  that  such  a  right  can  be  enforced 


St.  300;  Curtis  v.  Daniel,  23  Ark.  362; 
Hunter  v.  Hubbard,  26  Texas,  537; 
Helm's  Ex'rs  v.  Rogers,  81  Ky.  568; 
Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  Hay,  119  111.  493. 

'Lewellin  v.  Mackworth,  2  Atk.  40, 
S.  C.  Barn.  445.  See,  also,  to  same 
effect,  Collins  v.  McCarty,  68  Texas, 
150,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  475,  and  note ; 
Clark  V.  Miller,  89  Pa.  St.  242 ;  Love 
17.  Love,  65  Ala.  554;  Chase  v.  Cart- 
right,  53  Ark.  358,  S.  C.  22  Am.  St. 
R.  207;  Watkins  v.  Specht,  7  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)  585;  Martin  r.  :\Iartin,  118 
Ind.  227 ;  Potter  v.  Smith,  3(1  Ind.  231 ; 
Felix  V.  Patrick,  145  U.  S.  317;  Ham- 
mond V.  Hopkins,  143  IT.  S.  224. 

^  Nonce  V.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
33  Fed.  R.  429;  Johnson  v.  Anderson, 
76  Va.  766 ;  Hawse  v.  Burgmire,  4  Col. 
313;  Stirling  ?'.  Winter,  80  Mo.  141; 
Goodwin  v.  Morris,  9  Ore.  322 ;  Sawyer 
V.  McCanlay,  18  S.  Car.  543;  Thomp- 
son r.  Reed,  75  I\Ie.  404  ;  "Waterman  v. 
Spraguo  yUg.  Co.,  55  Conn.  554  ;  Walsh 
V.  Mayer,  111  U.  S.  31;    Townscnd  v. 


Jemison,  9  How.  (U.  S.)  407;  Krogg 
V.  R.  R.  Co.,  77  Ga.  202,  S.  C.  4  Am. 
St.  R.  79 ;  Paine  v.  Drew,  44  N.  H.  306 ; 
Bulger  V.  Roche,  11  Pick.  (Mass.)  36, 
S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  3-59,  and  note. 

'Mechanics'  Build.  Ass'n  v.  Whit- 
acre,  92  Ind.  .547  ;  Wood  v.  Bissell,  108 
Ind.  229;  Wright  r.  Strauss,  73  Ala. 
227  ;  Stewart  v.  Spaulding,  72  Cal.  264 ; 
Labatt  v.  Smith,  83  Ky.  599;  Bacon  r. 
Rives,  106  U.  S.  99 ;  Harrison  v.  Union 
Bank,  12  Neb.  499;  Luce  r.  Clarke, 
49  Minn.  356,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  1162. 

*  Beckford  v.  Wade,  17  Ves.  87 ;  Lin- 
coln V.  Battelle,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  475; 
Shelby  r.  Guy,  11  Wheat.  T.'S.)  361  ; 
Cobb  V.  Thompson,  1  A.  K.  Marsh. 
(Ky.)  507;  McArthur  v.  Goddin,  12 
Bush  (Ky.),  274;  McMerty  v.  Morri- 
son, 62  Mo.  140;  Finnell  r.  So.  Kan. 
R.  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R.  427;  Perkins  v. 
Guy,  55  Miss.  153 ;  Fletcher  r.  Spauld- 
ing, 9  Minn.  64;  Jones  v.  .lones,  18 
.\la.  248.  See,  also,  note  to  Bulger  v. 
Roche,  22  Am.  Dec.  359,  363. 


374  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT  §  300 

only  under  the  limitations  and  upon  the  conditions  prescribed 
in  the  statute  by  which  it  is  created.^ 

§  300.  Election  of  remedy. — There  are  many  cases  in  which 
the  plaintiff  may  have  an  election  of  remedies.  Thus,  where 
personal  property  has  been  obtained  by  means  of  a  fraudulent 
sale,  the  owner  may  sue  for  the  price  under  the  contract,^  or 
he  may  rescind  the  contract  and  sue  in  tort.-^  So,  as  a  general 
rule,  wherever  there  is  a  breach  both  of  contract  and  of  duty 
imposed  by  law,  as  in  case  of  loss  by  the  negligence  of  a  com- 
mon carrier,  the  plaintiff  may  sue  either  in  contract  or  in  tort, 
at  his  election.*  "From  certain  acts  or  omissions  of  a  party 
creating  a  liability  to  make  compensation  in  damages,  the  law 
implies  a  promise  to  pay  such  compensation.  Whenever  this 
is  so,  and  the  acts  or  omissions  are  at'  the  same  time  tortious, 
the  two-fold  aspect  of  the  single  liability  at  once  follows,  and 
the  injured  party  may  treat  it  as  arising  from  the  tort,  and  en- 
force it  by  an  action  setting  forth  the  tortious  acts  or  defaults; 
or  may  treat  it  as  arising  from  an  implied  contract,  and  enforce 
it  by  an  action  setting  forth  the  facts  from  which  the  promise 
is  inferred  by  the  law."^  This  doctrine  of  election  is  a  very 
important  one,  and  in  determining  what  remedy  to  pursue  the 
effect  of  the  statute  of  limitations  should  be  carefully  consid- 
ered. The  statutory  period  of  limitations  governing  actions 
on  contracts  is  generally  different  from  that  applicable  to  ac- 
tions for  torts,  and  it  may  constitute  a  bar  to  one  form  of  ac- 
tion but  not  to  the  other.  Thus,  where  the  plaintiff  had  erected 
a  bridge  under  a  contract  with  the   highway  commissioners, 

'Halsey^J. McLean, 12  Allen  (Mass.),  ^  j^line  w.  Baker,  99  Mass.  253;  Pren- 

438;    Eastwood  v.   Kennedy,  44  Md.  tiss  r.  Russ,  16  Me.  30. 

563;    Battle  v.  McArthur,  49  Fed.  E.  *Miss.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fort,  44 

715;  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co,  Miss.  423;  Whittenton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M. 

V.  Hine,   25   Ohio   St.  629;    Boyd  v.  &  O.  Packet  Co.,  21  Fed.  R.  896;  Pom. 

Clark,  8  Fed.  R.  849,  S.  C.  24  Alb.  L.  Rem.  &  Remed.  Rts.,  §  570;    BHss  on 

J.  508 ;  Glenn  v.  Williams,  60  Md.  93.  Code  Pleading,  §  14. 

Compare  Dennick  v.  Railroad  Co.,  103  ^Pom.  Rem.  &  Remed.  Rts.,  §  568. 

U.  S.  11.  For  additional  illustrations,  see  Vasse 

'Mollerv;.  Tuska,  87  N.Y.  166;  Pat-  v.  Smith,  6  Cranch  (U.S.),  226;  Leach 

terson  v.  Prior,  18  Ind.  440;    McCul-  v.  Leach,  58  N.  Y.  630;    Goodenow  v. 

lough  V.  McCullough,  14  Pa.  St.  295.  Snyder,  3  Greene  (la.),  599;    Halleck 


§301  TIME    OF    Bi;iN(;lN(J    TIIK    ACTION.  375 

and  the  commissioners  tore  it  down  and  converted  it  to  tlieir 
own  use,  it  was  held  that  the  plaintiff,  havinj^  hrought  an  ac- 
tion to  recover  the  contract  price,  which  was  defeated  on  a 
plea  of  the  statute  of  limitations,  had  made  an  election  of  rem- 
edies and  could  not  afterwards  sue  in  tort  for  the  conversion.' 
So,  it  may  he  stated  generally  that  where  a  party  has  an  election 
between  trover  and  assumpsit,  the  fact  that  one  remedy  is 
barred  by  the  statute  will  not  defeat  the  other  so  long  as  the 
statute  has  not  also  run  against  that  remedy.^ 

§  301.  Set-off. — In  the  absence  of  statutory  permission,  a 
demand  or  claim  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations  can  not, 
ordinarily,  be  used  as  a  set-off  any  more  than  it  can  be  made 
the  basis  of  an  original  action;^  but  there  is  an  exception  to 
this  rule  where  the  demand  arises  out  of  the  same  transaction 
as  the  plaintiff's  debt,'*  and,  in  some  of  the  States  there  are 
statutes  permitting  a  set-off  notwithstanding  the  claim  is  barred 
by  the  statute  of  limitations.^  So,  if  the  set-off  was  not  barred 
at  the  time  of  the  bringing  of  the  original  suit  the  defendant 
may  plead  it,  notwithstanding  the  statutory  period  has  since 
elapsed,  for  the  entire  proceeding  is  regarded  as  one  suit,  and 
the  institution  of  the  suit  by  the  plaintiff  suspends  the  opera- 
tion of  the  statute  upon  the  set-off.''  This  is  also  placed  upon 
the  ground  that  one  who  has  a  valid  set-off  at  the  time  a  suit  is 

V.  Mixer,  16  Cal.  574 ;  Sanders  v.  Ham-  *  Ord  v.  Ruspini,  2  Esp.  569 ;    Mann 

ilton,  3  Dana  (Ky.),  550.  v.  Palmer,  3  Abb.  Dec.   (N.  Y.)   1G2; 

^  Boots  V.  Ferguson,  46  Hun  (N.Y.),  Evans  r.  Yongue,  8  Rich.  113;  Riddle 

129.  r.  Kreinbiehi,  12  La.  Ann.  297;    Gu- 

»Ivey  V.  Owens,  28  Ala.  641.     See,  lick  r.  Turnpike  Co.,  14  N.  J.  L.  545; 

also,  Outhouse  v.  Outhouse,  13  Hun  Hayes  r.  Goodwin,  4  Mete.  (Ky.)  80. 

(N.  Y.),  130;    Lamb  v.  Clark,  5  Pick.  In  other  words,  the  exception  applies 

(Mass.)  193;    Morton  v.  Chandler,  8  where  the  claim  or  demand  is  in  the 

Me.  9;    Hony  v.  Hony,  1  Sim.  &  Stu.  nature  of  a  counter-claim  rather  than 

568.  a  set-off. 

'  Hicks  V.  Hicks,  3  East,  16;    Rug-  MVarring  v.  Hill,  89  Ind.  497;  Ren- 

gles  V.  Keeler,  3  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  263;  nick  >'.  Chandler,  59  Ind.  354;    Steere 

Reed   v.   Marshall.    90   Pa.    St.   345;  r.  Rrownell,  124  111.  27. 

Hinkley  r. Walters,  8  Watts  (Pa.) ,  260 ;  «  Bnimble  r.  Brown,  71  X.  Car.  513 ; 

Harwell  v.  Steel,  17  Ala.  372;  Trimyer  Harwell  r.  Steel,  17  Ala.  372;  Patrick 

V.  Pollard,  5  Gratt.  (Va.)  460.  v.  Petty,  83  Ala.  420;  Dunn  v.  Bell,  85 


376 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  302 


begun  ought  not  to  be  compelled  to  institute  an  independent 
action  during  the  pendency  of  such  suit.* 

§  302.  Equity — Laches. — In  courts  of  equity,  laches  has  al- 
ways been  discountenanced,  even  in  the  absence  of  any  statute 
of  limitations,^  and  since  the  adoption  of  such  statutes,  al- 
though they  may  not  expressly  apply  to  suits  in  equity,  wher- 
ever concurrent  jurisdiction  exists,  equity  will  follow  the  law.^ 
This  is  also  true,  as  a  general  rule,  even  where  the  jurisdiction 
in  equity  is  exclusive;^  but,  while  a  court  of  equity  will  gen- 
erally apply  the  statutory  limitation  by  way  of  analogy,  in 
such  a  case,  it  is  not  bound  to  do  so.^  It  may,  when  its  juris- 
diction is  exclusive,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  require 
it  in  order  to  bring  about  a  just  and  equitable  result,  either  re- 


Tenn.  581 ;  Stillwell  v.  Bertrand,  22 
Ark.  375;  Belleau  v.  Thompson,  33 
Cal.  495 ;  Folsom  v.  Winch,  63  la.  477 ; 
, Walker  v.  Clements,  15  Q.  B.  (N.  S.) 
1046. 
*    1  Eve  V.  Louis,  91  Ind.  457,  470. 

^  Cholmondeley  ».  CUnton,  2  Jac.  & 
W.  1;  Smith  v.  Clay,  Ambler,  645; 
Blake  v.  Gale,  L.  R.,  31  Ch.  Div.  196, 
209;  McKnight  v.  Taylor,  1  How.  (U. 
S.)  161;  Speidel  v.  Henrici,  120  U.  S. 
377,  387;  United  States  v.  Beebee,  17 
Fed.  R.  36;  Matterof  Neilley,  95  N.Y. 
390;  CatUn  v.  Green,  120  N.  Y.  441; 
Bell  V.  Hudson,  73  Cal.  285,  S.  C.  2 
Am.  St.  R.  791;  1  Beach  on  Modern 
Equity,  §  17;  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc. 
of  Law,  533. 

'Smith  V.  Wood,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  563; 
Breckenridge  v.  Churchill,  3  J.  J. 
Marsh.  (Ky.)  11 ;  Tiernan  v.  Rescan- 
iere,  10  G.  &  J.  (Md.)  217;  People  v. 
Everest,  4  Hill  (N.  Y.),  71 ;  Hovenden 
V.  Annesley,  2  Sch.  &  Lef.  607;  Elm- 
endorf  v.  Taylor,   10  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 


152;  Agens  v.  Agens  (N.  J.),  25  AtL 
R.  707 ;  Richardson??.  Gregory,  126111. 
166,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  777 ;  Reynolds  v. 
Sumner,  126  111.  58,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St.  R. 
523;  Calhoun  v.  Millard,  121  N.Y.  69; 
Ela  V.  Ela  (Mass.) ,  32  N.  E.  R.  957.  See, 
also,  "Legal  and  Equitable  Limita- 
tions," 7  Va.  L.  J.  385;  "Limitations of 
Actions  at  Law  and  Suits  in  Equity," 
6  Am.  Jur.  62. 

*  Arnett  v.  Finney,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  147; 
Switzer  v.  Noffsinger,  82  Va.  518 ;  City 
of  Wheeling  v.  Campbell,  12  W.  Va. 
36,  46 ;  Smith  v.  Wheeler,  58  la.  659 ; 
Askew  V.  Hooper,  28  Ala.  634 ;  Han- 
cock V.  Harper,  86  III.  445. 

*  Sullivan  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.R.  Co., 
94  U.  S.  807;  Kline  v.  Vogel,  90  Mo. 
239  ;  Sterndale  v.  Hankinson,  1  Sim. 
393 ;  University  v.  State  Nat.  Bank,  96 
N.  Car.  280,  288 ;  Marsh  v.  Oliver,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.  259;  Atty.  General  v.  Pur- 
mort,  5  Paige  (N.  Y.),  620;  Rockwell 
V.  Servant,  54  111.  251;  Penna.  R.  R. 
Co.'s  Appeal,  125  Pa.  St.  189. 


§303 


TIMI-:    OF    l5KIN'(iIN(j    Til  !•:    ACTION. 


377 


fuse  relief  before  the  statute  lius  run/  or  give  relief  long  after 
the  bur  of  the  statute  is  complete.^ 


§  303.  When  action  is  bogun. — As  a  general  rule,  the  action 
is  regarded  as  begun,  so  as  to  satisfy  the  statute  of  limitations, 
at  the  time  of  suing  out  the  process  and  delivering  it  to  a  prcjper 
officer  for  service.^  Under  this  rule,  the  mere  filing  of  the 
complaint  is  not  sufficient;  there  must  be  both  the  filing  of  a 
complaint  and  the  issuing  of  a  summons.^  In  some  States  the 
summons  is  not  regarded  as  issued  until  it  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  ofticer  for  service,''  while  in  others  the  mere  mak- 
ing out  of  the  writ  is  sufficient,  if  it  be  duly  served  thereafter.* 
In  California,  Maryland,  and  Texas  it  has  been  held  that  the 
action    is   commenced    by   filing  the    complaint,   although   no 


'  Spaulding  v.  Farwell,  70  Me.  17; 
Pusey  V.  Gardner,  21  W.  Va.  4(i9; 
Walker  v.  Ray,  111  111.  315,  322;  Ilag- 
erty  v.  Mann,  56  Md.  522;  McKnight 
V.  Taylor,  1  How.  (U.  S.)  161;  Helm 
V.  Yerger,  61  Miss.  44 ;  Kane  v.  Blood- 
good,  7  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  90;  Coster 
V.  Murray,  5  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  522; 
Goode  V.  Gaines,  145  U.  S.  141,  S.  C. 
12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  839;  Daniell  v.  East 
Boston  Ferry  Co.,  S.  C.  Wliittemore, 
Petitioner,  157  Mass.  46,  S.  C.  31  N.  E. 
R.  711 ;  Lawrence  v.  Rokes,  61  Me.  38 ; 
Harrison  v.  Gibson,  23  Gratt.  (Va.) 
212. 

"Union  Bank  v.  Stafford,  12  How. 
(U.  S.)  327;  Preston  r.  Preston,  95  U. 
S.  200;  Bancroft  r.  Andrews,  6  Cush. 
(Mass.)  493;  Locke  r.  Caldwell,  91 
111.417;  Lawrence  v.  Rokes,  61  Me. 
38;  Miner  r.  Beekman,  50  N.  Y.  337; 
Schoener  v.  Lissauer,  107  N.  Y.  Ill; 
Powell  V.  Murray,  10  Paige  (N.  Y.), 
256;  Pitzer  v.  Burns,  7  AV.  Va.  63. 

'  Lowry  v.  Lawrence,  1  Caines  (N. 
Y.),  69;  Beekman  v.  Satterlee,  5  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)519;  Cheetham  v.  Lewis.  3 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  42;  Carpenter  r.  Bnt- 
terfield,  3  Johns.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)    145; 


Hail  V.  Spencer,  1  R.  I.  17;  Kinney  v. 
Lee,  10  Tex.  155;  Harris  v.  Dennis,  1 
Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  236;  Bracken  v.  Mc- 
Alvey,  83  Iowa,  421,  S.  C.  49  N.W.  R. 
1022. 

*  Ramsey  v.  Foy,  10  Ind.  493 ;  Nib- 
lack  V.  Goodman,  67  Ind.  174 ;  Charles- 
town  School  Tp.  V.  Hay,  74  Ind.  127. 

^  Evans  v.  Galloway,  20  Ind.  479; 
Hancock  r.  Ritchie,  1 1  Ind.  48 ;  Ilarsh- 
man  v.  Armstrong,  43  Ind.  126;  Jack- 
son r.  Brooks,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  649; 
Hekla  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schroeder,  9  111. 
App.  472;  Schroeder  v.  Merchants', 
etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  104  111.  71 ;  Sandford  v. 
Dick,  17  Conn.  213;  Howell  v.  Shep- 
ard,  48  Mich.  472.  In  Indiana  where 
notice  is  given  by  publication  the  ac- 
tion is  not  commenced  until  the  first 
publication.  Wood  v.  Bissell,  lOS  Ind. 
229. 

«  Gardner  r.Webber,17  Pick.  (Mass.) 
407;  Bunker  v.  Shed,  8  Mete.  (Mass.) 
150 ;  Chapman  r.  Goodrich,  55  Vt.  354 ; 
Allen  V.  Mann,  1  Chip.  (Vt.)  94.  See, 
also.  State  Bank  r.  Cason,  5  Eng. 
(.\rk.)  479;  Flournoy  r.  Lyon,  70  Ala. 
308;  Satterley  v.  Morgan,  33  La.  Ann. 
846. 


378 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


303 


summons  is  issued  at  the  time.^  A  mere  purpose  or  attempt 
upon  the  part  of  the  defendant  to  evade  the  service  of  process 
is  no  excuse  for  not  bringing  the  action  within  the  statutory 
period,  unless  tlie  statute  so  provides,^  and  the  failure  to  get 
service,  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  plaintiff  in  mailing  the 
summons,  is  no  excuse.^  The  issuing  of  a  new  summons  af- 
ter defective  service  of  a  former  one,*  or  the  filing  of  a  supple- 
mental complaint,^  or  amendment  of  the  pl&ading,*^  without 
stating  a  new  cause  of  action,  where  good  faith  exists,  is  gen- 
erally regarded  as  a  continuance  of  the  original  action  and  not 
a  new  and  independent  action.  But  where  a  new  party  de- 
fendant is  brought  in  after  the  statutory  period  has  elapsed,'^  or 
a  writ  issued  against  two  is  served  upon  only  one,^  the  statute 
may  constitute  a  bar  as  to  the  party  not  served  in  time. 


1  Sharp  V.  Maguire,  19  Cal.  577 ;  Pim- 
ental  v.  San  Francisco,  21  Cal.  351 ; 
Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Lyles,  10  Gill  &  J. 
326;  Tribbyt'.  Wokee,  74  Texas,  142, 
S.  C.  11  S.W.  R.  1089.  So,  it  is  held 
in  Tennessee,  that  a  suit  in  equity  is 
begun  when  the  bill  is  filed  and  costs 
are  secured,  without  the  issuing  of  pro- 
cess. Collins  V.  North  British,  etc., 
Ins.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  432,  S.  C.  19  S.  W. 
R.  525.  See,  also,  Morris  v.  Elhs,  7 
Jur.  413. 

« Amy  V.  City  of  Watertown,  130  U. 
S.  320,  S.  C.  9  S.  Ct.  R.  537. 

^  Jewett  V.  Greene,  8  Me.  447.  But 
inevitable  accident  was  held  a  suffi- 
cient excuse  in  Bullock  v.  Dean,  12 
Mete.  (Mass.)  15.  See,  also,  Mich. 
Ins.   Bank  v.  Eldred,  130  U.  S.  693. 

*  Isaacs  V.  Price,  2  Dill.  (C.  C.)  347 ; 
Burton  v.  Buckeye  Ins.  Co.,  26  Ohio 
St.  467.  But,  see,  Etheridge  v.  Wood- 
ley,  83  N.  Car.  11. 

5  Evans  v.  Cleveland,  72  N.  Y.  486, 
488. 

"Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.-y.  Bills,  118 
Ind.  221 ;  Rowland  v.  Murphy,  66  Tex. 
534;  Blanchard  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R'y  Co.,  126  111.  416,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R. 


799;  Penna.  Co.  v.  Sloan,  125  111.  72; 
Sublett  V.  Hodges,  88  Ala.  491 ;  Van- 
dershce  v.  Matthews,  79  Cal.  273; 
Wolf  V.  Bauereis,  72  Md.  481,  S.  C.  19 
Atl.  R.  1045. 

■^  Leatherman  v.  Times  Co.,  88  Ky. 
291,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  342;  Rucker 
V.  Dailey,  66  Tex.  284 ;  Meara  v.  Hol- 
brook,  20  Ohio  St.  137,  150 ;  Thomp- 
son V.  School  Dist.,  71  Mo.  495 ;  Brown 
V.  Goolsby,  34  Miss.  437.  Compare 
Bradford  v.  Andrews,  20  Ohio  St.  208. 
The  statute  generally  ceases  to  run  at 
the  time  the  new  party  is  brought  in 
by  amendment.  Bell's  Appeal,  115 
Pa.  St.  88,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  532.  But 
the  amendment  in  such  case  does  not 
cause  the  statute  to  run  against  the 
original  defendant,  where  no  new 
cause  of  action  is  stated  against  him. 
Lewis  V.  Adams,  70  Cal.  403,  S.  C.  11 
Pac.  R.  833.  See,  also,  Lilly  v.  Tob- 
bein  (Mo.),  13  S.W.  Rep.  1060,  where 
it  was  held  that  the  substitution  of 
trustees  related  back  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  action. 

sMagaw  v.  Clark,  6  Watts  (Pa.), 
528;  AVann  v.  Pattengale,  14  Pa.  St. 
313. 


§304 


TIMK    OF    BRINGING    THK    ACTION. 


379 


§  304.  Computation  of  time. — Although  there  was  at  one 
time  considerable  conflict  among  the  authorities  as  to  whether 
in  determining  the  statutory  period,  the  day  on  which  the 
cause  of  action  accrued  was  to  be  included  or  excluded,  the 
modern  rule  is  that  it  should  be  excluded.^  The  word  "year," 
when  used  in  a  statute  or  contract  is  construed  to  mean  a  year 
according  to  the  Christian  calendar, ^  unless  the  context  indi- 
cates a  different  construction.^  The  construction  of  the  word 
"month"  is  generally  regulated  by  statute,  and  in  some  States 
it  is  to  be  taken  as  a  lunar  month,  while  in  many  others  it  is 
to  be  construed  as  meaning  a  calendar  month.*  A  "day" 
ordinarily  means  twenty-four  hours. ^  The  law  generally  pays 
no  attention  to  fractions  of  a  day,^  but  where  it  is  necessary  in 
order  to  do  right  and  accomplish  justice  the  truth  in  point  of 
time  may  be  averred  and  proved.'^ 


'  Seward  v.  Hayden,  150  Mass.  158, 
S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  629;  Paul  v.  Stone, 
112  Mass.  27;  Cornell  v.  Moulton,  3 
Denio  (N.Y.),  12;  Fairbanks  v. Wood, 
17  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  329 ;  Weeks  v.  Hull, 
19  Conn.  376;  Blackman  v.  Nearing, 
43  Conn.  56 ;  Sheets  v.  Selden,  2  AVall. 
(U.  S.)  177,  190;  Savage  v.  State,  18 
Fla.  970 ;  AVarren  v.  Slade,  23  Mich.  1 ; 
The  Mary  Blane  v.  Beehler,  12  Mo. 
477;  Kimm  v.  Osgood,  19  Mo.  60; 
Smith  V.  Cassity,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  192; 
Menges  v.  Frick,  73  Pa.  St.  137 ;  Hicks 
V.  Blanchard,  60  Vt.  673 ;  Williams  v. 
Burgess,  12  Ad.  &  El.  635 ;  Hardy  v. 
Ryle,  9  Barn.  &  Cres.  603.  See,  also, 
Vogel  V.  State,  107  Ind.  374;  Wright 
V.  Manns,  111  Ind.  422.  But,  see, 
contra  Norris  v.  Gawtry,  Hob.  R. 
139 ;  Arnold  v.  United  States,  9  Cranch 
(U.  S.),  103;  Castle  v.  Burditt,  3T.  R. 
623;    King  v.    Adderley,    Doug.   463. 

'Thornton  v.  Boyd,  25  Miss.  598; 
Engleman  v.  State,  2  Ind.  91 ;  Elliott's 
Appellate  Proc,  §126. 

^  Knode  v.  Baldridge,  73  Ind.  54. 

*  Calendar  in  Indiana,  Massachu- 
setts,   New  York,  Pennsylvania  and 


Virginia.  See  Elliott's  App.  Proc, 
§126;  Buswell  on  Limitations,  §.34. 
And  this  is  the  general  rule  in  this 
country.  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of 
Law,  712. 

*  Benson  v.  Adams,  69  Ind.  353. 
See  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law,  81. 

« Matter  of  Welman,  20  Vt.  653; 
Jones  V.  Planters'  Bank,  5  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  619;  Duffy  i\  Ogden,  64  Pa. 
St.  240;  Arnold  v.  United  States,  9 
Cranch  (U.  S.),  103 ;  Small  v.  McChes- 
ney,  3  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  19;  Blydenburgh 
V.  Cotheal,  4  N.  Y.  418;  Lester  v.  Gar- 
land, 15  Ves.  248;  Portland  Bank  v. 
Maine  Bank,  11  Mass.  204. 

'  Louisville  v.  Sav.  Bank,  104  U.  S. 
469;  Grosvenor  v.  Magi  11,  37  111.  239; 
Bigelow  V.  Wilson,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 
485;  Westbrook  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Grant.  60 
Me.  88 ;  Gibson  v.  Keyes,  112  Ind.  568. 
"I  am  aware,"  said  Judge  Story,  in 
the  case  of  Matter  of  Richardson,  2 
Story  (U.  S.  C.  C),  571,  "that  it  is 
often  laid  down  that  in  law  there  is  no 
fraction  of  a  dm'.  But  this  doctrine 
is  true  only  sitb  modo,  ami  in  a  lim- 
ited sense,  where  it  will  promote  the 


380 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  305 


§  305.  Effect  of  disability. — It  is  a  general  rule  that  when 
the  statute  of  limitations  lias  once  begun  to  run  nothing  will 
interrupt  it;^  but  provision  is  usually  made  permitting  persons 
under  disabilities  when  the  cause  of  action  accrued  to  bring 
the  action  within  a  certain  time  after  their  disabilities  are  re- 
moved. Such  provisions  are  strictly  construed. ^  In  order  to 
toll  the  statute,  the  disability  must  have  existed  at  the  time 
the  cause  of  action  accrued,^  and  one  disability  can  not  be 
tacked  to  another.*  But  where  two  or  more  disabilities  co-ex- 
ist at  the  time  the  cause  of  action  accrues,  the  party  resting, 
under  them  is  not  obliged  to  act  before  the  last  one  has  been 


right  and  justice  of  the  case.  It  is  a 
mere  legal  fiction,  and,  therefore,  like 
all  other  fictions,  is  never  allowed  to 
operate  against  the  right  and  justice 
of  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  the 
very  truth  and  facts,  in  point  of  time, 
may  always  be  averred  and  proved  in 
furtherance  of  the  right  and  justice  of 
the  case." 

»  Piper  V.  Hoard,  107  N.  Y.  67,  S.  C. 
1  Am.  St.  R.  785,  and  note ;  Doyle  v. 
Wade,  23  Fla.  90,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R. 
334,  and  note ;  Johnson  ».  Schumacher, 
72  Tex.  334,  S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  207; 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  80  Ga.  260 ;  Miller 
V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  132  U.  S.  662, 
S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  206;  Conover  ?7. 
Wright,  6N.  J.  Eq.  613 ;  Daniel  v.  Day, 
51  Ala.  431 ;  Kistler  v.  Hereth,  75  Ind. 
177;  Meeks  v.  Vassault,  3  Saw.  (C. 
C.)  206,  and  see  authoi'ities  cited  in 
following  notes. 

""  Beckford  v.  Wade,  17  Ves.  87 ;  Hall 
V.  Bumstead,  20  Pick.  (Mass.)  2;  Dar- 
nall  V.  Adams,  13  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  273; 
Sparks  v.  Roberts,  65  Ga.  571 ;  Sacia 
V.  DeGraaf,  1  Cow.  (N.Y.)  356;  Buck- 
lin  V.  Ford,  5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  393;  Amy 
V.  Watertown,  130  U.  S.  320;  Vance  v. 
Vance,  108  U.  S.  514;    Chemical  Nat. 


Bank  v.  Kissane,  32  Fed.  R.  429;  De 
Moss  V.  Newton,  31  Ind.  219. 

3  McDonald  v.  Hovey,  llO  U.  S.  619; 
Hogan  V.  Kurtz,  94  U.  S.  773;  Lewis 
V.  Marshall,  5  Pet.  (U.  S.)  469;  Daniel 
V.  Day,  51  Ala.  431 ;  Dowell  v.  Tucker, 
46  Ark.  438;  McLeran  v.  Benton,  73 
Cal.  329 ;  Doyle  v.  Wade,  23  Fla.  90 ; 
Kistler  v.  Hereth,  75  Ind.  177 ;  Lin- 
coln V.  Norton,  36  Vt.  679.  Except, 
under  most  statutes,  where  it  is  ab- 
sence from  the  State.  In  that  case,  if 
the  absence  occurs  after  the  cause  of 
action  has  accrued  but  before  the  stat- 
ute has  run,  the  effect  is  to  add  the 
time  of  absence  to  the  statutory  period, 
or,  in  other  words,  not  to  count  it  as 
any  part  of  the  statutory  period. 

*Millington  v.  Hill,  47  Ark.  301; 
Martin  v.  Letty,  18  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  573 ; 
Clark  V.  Trail,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  35; 
Bunce  v.  Wolcott,  2  Conn.  27 ;  White 
V.  Clawson,  79  Ind.  188;  Walker  v. 
Hill,  111  Ind.  223;  Bensell  v.  Chan- 
cellor, 3  Whart.  (Pa.)  371;  Butler??. 
How.  13  Me.  397;  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1 
How.  (U.S.)  37;  Becker  ?j.  Van  Valk- 
enburgh,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  319;  Eager 
V.  Commonwealth,  4  Mass.  182 ;  Dem- 
arest  v.  Wynkoop,  3  Johns.  Ch.  (N. 
Y.)  129. 


§306 


TIME    OF    BRINGING    THE    ACTION. 


381 


removed.*  The  ordinary  disabilities  are  coverture,^  infancy,^ 
insanity  or  "unsound  mind,"*  imprisonment^  and  absence 
from  the  State  or  United  States/'  and  all  these  are  included  in 
the  phrase  "under  legal  disabilities."'  An  exception  may 
also  arise  by  necessity,  as  in  case  of  war  preventing  the  bring- 
ing of  an  action.*^ 

§  300.    New  promise  or  acknowledgment. — A  new  promise 
to    pay    a    debt    will    take    it    out  of    the    statute    and    start 


'Sims  V.  Everhardt,  102  U.  S.  300; 
Sims  V.  Bardoner,  86  Ind.  87,  96 ;  But- 
ler V.  Howe,  13  Me.  397;  North  v. 
James,  61  Miss.  761 ;  Blackwell  v. 
Bragg,  78  Va.  529;  Keeton  v.  Keeton, 
20  Mo.  530 ;  Bunce  v.  Wolcott,  2  Conn 
27;  Demarest  v.  Wynkoop,  3  Johns. 
■Ch.  (N.  Y.)  129. 

*  See  In  re  Lady  Hastings,  L.  R.,  35 
Ch.  Div.  94;  AVood  v.  Riker,  1  Paige, 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  616;  Beloit,  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Merrill,  etc.,  Works,  81  AVis.  142,  S.  C. 
50  N.  W.  R.  505;  Stephens  v.  McCor- 
miek,  5  Bush  (Ky.),  181;  ^lichan  v. 
Wyatt,  21  Ala.  813;  Norwood  r.  Gon- 
zales Co.,  79  Tex.  218,  and  see  note  to 
Moore  v.  Armstrong,  36  Am.  Dec.  63, 
69.  But  this  disability  has  been  re- 
moved in  many  States  by  the  "Married 
Women's  Acts."  See  Acker  v.  Acker, 
81  N.  Y.  143;  City  of  Indianapolis  v. 
Patterson,  112  Ind.  344;  Geisen  r. 
Heiderich,  104  111.  537 ;  Garland  Co.  v. 
Caines,  47  Ark.  558 ;  Perkins  v.  Conip- 
ton,  69  Ga.  736;  Wilson  v.  Wilson,  36 
Cal.  447. 

»  See  Poullain  r.Poullain,  72  Ga.  412 ; 
Tippin  r.  Coleman,  59  Miss.  641 ;  War- 
ren V.  Hearne,  82  Ala.  554;  Bozenian 
V.  Browning,  31  Ark.  364;  Jackson  v. 
Moore,  13  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  513,  S.  C.  7 
Am.  Dec.  398 ;  and  see  note  to  Moore 
V.  Armstrong,  36  Am.  Dec.  63,  68. 
But,  see,  Herff  v.  Griggs,  121  Ind.  471, 
S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  279. 

*See  Sasser  v.  Davis,  27  Tex.  656; 


Oliver  v.  Berry,  53  Me.  206;  Thurnian 
V.  Shelton,  10  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  383;  An- 
derson r.  Layton,  3  Busli  (Ky.),  87. 

*  See  Downs  v.  Allen, 10  Lea  (Tenn.), 
652;  Matilda  v.  Crenshaw,  4  Yerg. 
(Tenn.)  299;  Piggott  v.  Rush,  4  Ad.  & 
El.  912;  McDonald  v.  Hovey,  110  U. 
S.  619. 

®  Absence,  from  the  United  States  is 
sometimes  required.  Smith  v.  Bryan, 
74  Ind.  515;  Harris  v.  Harris,  71  N. 
Car.  174;  Mason  v.  Johnson,  24  111. 
159,  S.  C.  76  Am.  Dec.  740;  Keeton  r. 
Keeton,  20  Mo.  530;  Gonder  r.  Esta- 
brook,  33  Pa.  St.  374.  But  in  other 
jurisdictions  absence  from  the  State  is 
sufficient.  Murray  v.  Baker,  3  Wheat. 
(U.  S.)  541 ;  Smith  v.  Bartram,  11  Ohio 
St.  690;  Stephenson  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf. 
508,  S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  489;  Derham 
r.  Holeman,  26  Ga.  182,  S.  C.  71  Am. 
Dec.  198;  Keech  v.  Enriquez,  28  Fla. 
597,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  91.  As  to  meaning 
and  effect  of  absence  from  State,  see 
Stanley  v.  Stanley,  47  Ohio  St.  225,  S. 
C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  806,  and  note;  Mc- 
Cann  v.  Randall,  147  Mass.  81,  S.  C.  9 
Am.  St.  R.  666,  and  note;  Langdon  v. 
Doud,  6  Allen  (Mass.),  423,  S.  C.  83 
Am.  Dec.  641,  and  note;  Moore  v. 
Armstrong,  36  Am.  Dec.  63,  72,  note. 

'  Rauman  r.  Grubbs,  26  Ind.  419; 
Hawkins  r.  Hawkins,  28  Ind.  66. 

*  Perkins  v.  Rogers,  35  Ind.  124; 
Levy  r.  Stewart,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  244; 
Hanger  v.  Abbott,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  532; 


382 


tiil;  W01U-:  out  of  court. 


306 


the  statute  afresh.*  So,  an  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness, 
if  of  such  a  character  as  to  give  rise  to  the  implication  of  a 
new  promise,  will  take  the  case  out  of  the  statute.^  And  part 
payment  is  generally  a  sufficient  acknowledgment  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  present  debt,  from  which  a  new  promise  may  be 
implied.^  But  the  acknowledgment  may  be  so  qualified  as  to 
prevent  the  implication  of  a  new  promise,'*  and  if  the  promise 
is  conditional  it  must  be  proved  that  the  condition  has  been 
fulfilled.-'  The  law  upon  this  subject  is  well  and  concisely 
stated  in  a  leading  case  by  Lord  Justice  Mellish,  as  follows: 
"There  must  be  one  of  these  three  thinfjfs  to  take  the  case  out 


Hodges  V.  Taylor  (Ark.),  13  S.  W.  R. 
129;  Coleman  v.  Holmes,  44  Ala.  124. 
See,  also,  Greenwald  v.  Appell,  17 
Fed.  R.  140 ;  Hill  v.  Phillips,  14  R. 
I.  93. 

'  Le  Roy  v.  Crowninsliield,  2  Mason 
(C.  C),  151;  Austin  v.  Bostwick,  9 
Conn.  496;  Mastin  v.  Branham,  86 
Mo.  643;  Engmann  v.  Estate  of  Im- 
mel,  59  Wis.  249;  Ayers  v.  Richards, 
12111. 146;  Kruegerv.  Ivrueger,76Tex. 
178  ;  Pickering  v.  Frink,  62  N.  H.  342; 
Tuggle  V.  Minor,  76  Cal.  96.  And  see 
authorities  cited  in  following  notes. 

2  Yost  V.  Grim,  116  Pa.  St.  527 ;  Shaef- 
fer  V.  Hoffman,  113  Pa.  St.  1 ;  Shep- 
herd V.  Thompson,  122  U.  S.  231; 
Moore  v.  Clark,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  152 ;  Bell 
V.  Morrison,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  351 ;  Holt 
V.  Gage,  60  N.  H.  536;  Henry  v.  Root, 
33  N.  Y.  526;  Olvey  ^?.  Jackson,  106 
Ind.  286;  Custy  v.  Donlan  (Mass.),  34 
N.  E.  R.  360 ;  Foster  v.  Smith,  52  Conn. 
449;  Stewart  v.  Garrett,  65  Md.  392. 
It  should  be  clear  and  definite.  Mor- 
rell  V.  Frith,  3  M.  &  W.  403 ;  Weston 
V.  Hodgkins,  136  Mass.  326 ;  Switzer 
V.  Noffsinger,  82  Va.  518;  Allen  v. 
Webster,  15  Wend.  (N.Y.)  284;  Whit- 
ney i?.  Bigelow,  4  Pick.  (Mass.)  110; 
Landis  v.  Roth,  109  Pa.  St.  621,  S.  C. 
58  Am.  R.  747,  and  note;  Miller  v. 


Baschore,  83  Pa.  St.  356 ;  Fletcher  v. 
Gillan,  62  Miss.  8. 

3  Barclay's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  69; 
Wesner  v.  Stein,  97  Pa.  St.  322 ;  Hew- 
lett V.  Schenck,  82  N.  Car.  234 ;  Miner 
V.  Lorman,  56  Mich.  212;  Creightonv. 
Vincent,  10  Ore.  66;  Conwell  v.  Bu- 
chanan, 7  Blackf.  537;  Day  v.  Mayo, 
154  Mass.  472,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  898; 
Manson  v.  Lancey,  84  Me.  380,  S.  C. 
24  Atl.  R.  880 ;  Crockett  v.  Mitchell,  88 
Ga.  166,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  118;  United 
States ^;.  Wilder,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  254; 
Bank  of  Utica  v.  Ballon,  49  N.Y.  155; 
Whipple  V.  Stevens,  22  N.  H.  219. 

*  A'Court  V.  Cross,  3  Bing.  329 ;  Tan- 
ner V.  Smart,  6  Barn.  &  Cres.  603 
Krebs  v.   Olmstead,   137   Mass.   504 
Marshall  v.    Dalliber,   5   Conn.   480 
Currier  v.  Lockwood,  40  Conn,   349 
Curtis    V.    Sacramento,   70   Cal.   412 
Sands  ■??.  Gelston,  15  Johns.  (N.Y.)  511 
Adams  i;.  Cameron  (Ala.),  10  So.  R 
506 ;  Lester??.  Thompson,  91  Mich.  245 
S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  893 ;  Keener  v.  Zart- 
man,  144  Pa.  St.  179,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R. 
889;  Linderman  v.  Pomeroy,  142  Pa. 
St.  168,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  494. 

^  Davies  v.  Smith,  4  Esp.  36 ;  Bethell 
V.  Bethell,  L.  R.,  34  Ch.  Div.  561; 
Stowell  V.  Fowler,  59  N.  H.  585;  Rob- 
bins  t?.  Otis,  1  Pick,  (Mass. )368;   Boyn- 


306 


TIME    OF    lJKINGIN(i    THE    ACTION. 


383 


of  the  statute.  Either  there  must  be  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  debt,  from  which  a  promise  to  pay  is  to  be  implied,  or, 
secondly,  there  must  be  an  unconditional  promise  to  pay  the 
debt;  or,  thirdly,  there  must  be  a  conditional  promise  to  pay 
the  debt,  and  evidence  that  the  condition  has  been  performed."^ 
In  most  of  the  States  the  new  promise  or  acknowledgment  is 
required  by  statute  to  be  in  writing,'-^  and  in  most  jurisdic- 
tions the  rules  above  stated  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  an  ac- 
knowledgment apply  only  to  cases  in  which  the  action  rests 
upon  a  contractor  promise.^  Thus,  after  the  statute  has  barred 
an  action  for  a  tort,  an  acknowledgment  will  not  avoid  the 
statute.^  The  acknowledgment  or  promise  must  be  made  to 
the  creditor  or  his  agent, ^  or  if  to  a  stranger  it  must  be  made 
with  the  intention  that  it  should  be  communicated  to  the  cred- 
itor.^ An  acknowledgment  of  a  debt  made  to  a  stranger,  and 
not  intended  to  be  communicated  to  the  creditor  will  not  re- 
move the  bar  of  the  statute.'     And,  to  be  effective,  it  must  be 


ton  V.  Moulton  (Mass.),  34  N.  E.  R. 
361 ;  Richardson  v.  Bricker,  7  Colo. 
58 ;  Mattocks  v.  Chadwick,  71  Me.  313 ; 
Shepherd  v.  Thompson,  122  U.  S.  231 ; 
Shown  r.  Hawkins,  85  Tenn.  214. 

>  Mitcliell's  Claim,  L.  R.,6Ch.  App. 
822. 

'Ketcham  v.  Hill,  42  Ind.  64;  Kis- 
ler  V.  Sanders,  40  Ind.  78;  Pierce  v, 
Seymour,  52  Wis.  272,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R. 
737 ;  Wood  on  Limitation  of  Actions, 
§  83.  But  these  statutes  do  not  change 
the  effect  of  part  payment,  except  in 
Nevada.  Wilcox  v.  Williams,  5  Nev. 
206. 

'  Oothout  V.  Thompson,  20  Johns. 
(N.Y.)  277;  Goodwyn  r.  Goodwyn,  16 
Ga.  114 ;  Ott  v.  Whitworth,  8  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  494;  Niblack  v.  Goodman,  67 
Ind.  174 ;  McAleer  v.  Clay  Co.,  38  Fed. 
R.  707;  Taylor  v.  Spivey,  11  Ired.  (N. 
Car.)  427;  Crawford  v.  Childress,  1 
Ala.  482.  But  see  Armstrong  v.  Le- 
van,  109  Pa.  St.  177. 

*Galligheri\  Ilullingsworth,  3  H.  & 


McH.(Md.)  122;  Oothout  v.  Thomp- 
son, 20  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  277;  Hurst  v. 
Parker,  1  B.  &  Aid.  92. 

^Biddel  v.  Brizzolara,  04  Cal.  354; 
Gillingham  v.  Gillingham,  17  Pa.  St. 
302;  ^IcKinney  v.  Snyder,  78  Pa.  St. 
497;  Croman  v.  Stull,"  119  Pa.  St.  91; 
Ringo  V.  Brooks,  26  Ark.  540;  Trous- 
dale V.  Anderson,  9  Bush.  (Ky.)  276; 
Kisler  v.  Sanders,  40  Ind.  78 ;  Niblack 
V.  Goodman,  67  Ind.  174;  Sibert  v. 
Wilder,  16  Kan.  176,  S.  C.  22  Am.  R. 
280;  City  of  Houston  r.  Jankowskie, 
76  Texas,  368,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  269. 

«  De  Freest  r.  Warner,  98  N.  Y.  217, 
221 ;  Wakeman  v.  Sherman,  9 N.Y.  85 ; 
Bachman  v.  Roller,  9  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 
409.  See,  also,  Allen  v.  Collier,  70 
Mo.  138,  S.  C.  35  Am.  R.  416,  and  note. 

'  Parker  v.  Remington,  15  R.  I.  300, 
S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  897 ;  Matter  of  Ken- 
drick,  107  N.Y.  104 ;  Spangler  v.  Span- 
gler,  122  Pa.  St.  358,  S.  C.  9  Am.  St. 
R.  114. 


384 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§307 


made  by  the  debtor,  or  for  him  by  his  authorized  agent. ^  Par- 
tial payment  by  one  joint  debtor  does  not  defeat  the  operation 
of  the  statute  as  to  the  others.^  But  it  is  said  that  "at  common 
law,  and  in  those  States  where  the  common  law  rule  prevails, 
a  distinction  is  made  between  those  cases  in  which  a  part  pay- 
ment is  made  by  one  of  several  promisors  of  a  note  before  the 
statute  of  limitations  has  attached  and  those  in  which  the  pay- 
ment is  made  after  the  completion  of  the  bar  of  the  statute;  it 
being  held  in  the  former  that  the  debt  or  demand  is  kept  alive 
as  to  all,  and  in  the  latter  that  it  is  revived  only  as  to  the  party 
making  the  payment."^  A  new  promise  or  an  unequivocal 
acknowledgment  by  a  partner,  while  the  partnership  relation 
continues,  will  bind  the  firm.* 

§  307.  Special  limitations. — There  are  special  limitations 
created  by  statute  or  contract,  independent  of  the  general  stat- 
ute of  limitations,  which  may  not  only  bar  the  remedy,  but 
extinguish  the  right  itself.  They  may  be  made  conclusive 
even  upon  persons  under  disabilities,'^  and,  if  valid  at  the  place 


1  McMullen  v.  Rafferty,  89N.Y.  456, 
460;  Wilmerr.  Gaither,  68  Md.  342; 
Ryal  V.  Morris,  68  Ga.  834;  Ringo  v. 
Brooks,  26  Ark.  540;  Lord  v.  Morris, 
18  Cal.  482;  City  of  Houston  v.  Jank- 
ouskie,  76  Texas,  368,  S.  C.  13  S.  W. 
Rep.  269;  Fort  Scott  v.  Hickman,  112 
TJ.  S.  150,  S.  C.  5  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  56. 

2  Bottles  V.  Miller,  112  Ind.  584; 
Bell  V.  Morrison,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  351 ; 
Van  Keuren  v.  Parmelee,  2  N.  Y.  523 ; 
Shoemaker -y.  Benedict,  11  N.  Y.  176; 
IMcMullen  v.  Rafferty,  89  N.  Y.  456, 
459;  Steele  v.  Souder,  20  Kan.  39; 
Knight  V.  Clements,  45  Ala.  89 ;  Schin- 
del  V.  Gates,  46  Md.  604;  Mayberry  v. 
Willoughby,  5  Neb.  368 ;  Willoughby 
^.  Irish,  35  Minn.  63 ;  Walters  v.  Kraft, 
23  So.  Car.  578;  Palmer  v.  Dodge,  4 
Ohio  St.  21;  Bush  v.  Stowell,  71  Pa. 
St.  208.  Contra,  Whitcomb  v.  Whit- 
ing, Doug.  652;  Bound  v.  Lathrop,  4 
Conn.  336;  Campbell  v.  Brown,  86  N. 


Car.  376 ;  Casebolt  v.  Ackerman,  46  N. 
J.  L.  169;  Shepley  v.  Waterhouse,  22 
Me.  497;  Bridge  v.  Gray,  14  Pick. 
(Mass.)  55 ;  Hollister??.  York,  59  Vt.  1. 

^  Per  Lamar,  J.,  in  Cross  v.  Allen, 
141  U.  S.  528,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  67. 
It  was  held  in  this  case  that  payments 
made  by  the  principal  before  the  stat- 
ute had  run  against  the  note  kept  the 
debt  alive  as  to  the  surety. 

*  Sears  v.  Starbird,  78  Cal.  225 ;  Tate 
V.  Clements,  16  Fla.  339,  .354;  Tappan 
V.  Kimball,  30  N.  H.  136;  Wood  v. 
Barber,  90  N.  Car.  76;  Faulkner  v. 
Bailey,  123  Mass.  588;  Abrahams  v. 
Myers,  40  Md.  499.  As  to  its  effect,  if 
made  after  dissolution  of  the  partner- 
ship, the  authorities  are  conflicting. 
They  are  reviewed  in  the  note  to  Char- 
don  V.  Oliphant,  6  Am.  Dec.  572.  See, 
also,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  En(;y.  of  Law, 
761,  762. 

^  Cochran  v.  Young,  104  Pa.  St.  333 ; 


§  308  TIME    OF    BRINGING    THE    ACTION.  385 

of  contract,  are  valid  everywhere.^  Thus,  in  many  insurance 
policies,  it  is  provided  that  no  action  can  be  maintained  thereon 
unless  brought  within  a  certain  time,  and  it  is  held  that  if 
valid  at  the  place  of  contract,  such  provision  is  valid  every- 
where.^ So,  telegraph  companies  may  stipulate  that  claims 
for  damages  for  failure  to  deliver  messages  must  be  presented 
within  a  reasonable  time.^  An  insurance  company  may,  how- 
ever, estop  itself  from  insisting  upon  a  provision  in  the  policy 
limiting  the  time  for  bringing  suit  by  engaging  in  negotiations 
with  the  insured  and  holding  out  reasonable  hopes  of  an  ad- 
justment, thus  deterring  him  from  suing  until  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  period  of  limitation.^ 

§  308.  Presumptions. — It  was  a  rule  of  the  common  law  as 
well  as  of  equity  that  payment  would  be  presumed  after  twenty 
years.^  ''This  presumption,  prima  facie,  obliterates  the  debt, 
and  the  onus  of  proof  is  upon  the  creditor,  not  to  establish  a 
new  contract,  as  is  the  case  when  the  debt  is  barred  by  the 
statute  of  limitations,  but  to  show  that  payment  of  the  debt 
has  not  been  made."^     So,  it  may  be  presumed  that  an  account 

Taylor  v.  Cranberry  Iron  Co.,  94  N.  Ind.  93;  Western Un.Tel. Co.  r.  Scircle, 

Car.  525.  103  Ind.  227  ;  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.  v. 

»  Hudson  V.  Bishop,  35  Fed.  R.  820;  Culberson,  79  Tex.  65,  S.  C.  15  S.  W. 

Eastwood  V.  Kennedy,  44  Md.  563;  Rep.  219. 

Boker  v.  Stonebraker,  36  Mo.  338.  *  Allemania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Peck,  133 

»  Hudson  V.  Bishop,  32  Fed.  R.  519.  111.  220,  24  N.  E.  R.  538,  S.  C.  2  Lewis' 

See,  also,  Riddlesbarger  v.  Hartford  Am.  R.  R.  &.  Corp.  R.  438;  Ins.  Co.  n. 

Ins.  Co.,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  386;  Carter  Whitehill,  25111.466;  Ins.  Co.  r.  Myer, 

V.  Humboldt  Ins.  Co.,  12  la.  287.     As  93  111.  271 ;    :Martin  r.  Ins.  Co.,  44  N. 

to  when  the  statute  begins  to  run,  see  J.  L.  485;    Barnum  v.  Ins.  Co.,  97  N. 

Murdock  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  33  W.  Y.  188;  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hall,  12  Mich.  202; 

Va.  407,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  777,  S.  C.  1  Mickey  v.  Ins.  Co.,  35  la.  174. 

Lewis' Am.  R.R.&  Corp.  Cases  24,  and  ^Bean  v.   Tonnele,   94  N.  Y.  381; 

authorities  there  cited ;  Wood  on  Ins.,  Black  r.  Pratt,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Ala.  504; 

§443;    May  on  Ins.,  §479;    German  Lash  r.  Von  Neida,  109  Pa.  St.  207; 

Ins.  Co.  (7.  Fairbank  (Neb.),  5  Lewis'  Bass  v.   Bass,  8  Pick.    (Mass.)    187; 

Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cases.  90;  Case  v.  Criss  v.   Criss,   28  W.  Va.  388,  397; 

Ins.  Co.,  83  Cal.  473,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  Gregory  r.  Commonwealth,  121  Pa.  St. 

534.  611;  Best  on  Presumptions,  188. 

»  Western  Union  Co.  v.  Meredith,  95  «Bentley's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  504; 
25 


386 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§308 


has  been  settled  after  twenty  years/  or  that  a  mortgage  has 
been  satisfied.^  The  existence  and  the  force  and  effect  of  such 
presumptions  as  well  as  the  effect  of  laches  and  the  statute  of 
limitations  are  matters  to  be  carefully  considered  by  counsel 
for  the  plaintiff  before  bringing  suit  and  by  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendant in  determining  and  preparing  his  defense. 


Gregory  v.  Commonwealth,  121  Pa.  St. 
611 ;  Campbell  v.  Brown,  86  N.  Car. 
376.  See,  also.  Walker  v.  Robinson, 
136  Mass.  280.  It  may  also  arise  from 
the  lapse  of  a  shorter  period  coupled 
with  other  circumstances.  Husky  v. 
Maples,  2  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  25,  S.  C.  88 
Am.  Dec.  588,  and  note;  Hughes  v. 
Hughes,  54  Pa.  St.  240;  Briggs'  Ap- 
peal, 93  Pa.  St.  485 ;  Bander  v.  Snyder, 
5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  63;  Walker  v.  Emer- 
son, 20  Tex.  706 ;  Perkins  v.  Hawkins, 
9Gratt.  (Va.)  649;  Garnier  v.  Renner, 
'61  Ind.  372.     But,  compare,  Daby  v. 


Ericsson,  45  N.  Y.  786 ;  Sadler  v.  Ken- 
nedy, 11  W.  Va.  187 ;  Thomas  v.  Hun- 
nicutt,  54  Ga.  337. 

1  Hancock  r.Cook,18  Pick.  (Mass.)30. 

2  Trash  v.  White,  3  Brown's  Ch.  289 ; 
Giles  V.  Baremore,  5  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 
545;  Hughes  v.  Edward,  9  Wheat.  (U, 
S.)  489.  Or  that  a  defendant  was 
properly  served,  although  the  record 
fails  to  show  service.  Wilson  v.  Holt, 
83  Ala.  528,  S.  C.  3  Am.  St.  R.  768 ; 
Best  «.  Vanhook  (Ky.),  13  S.  W.  R. 
119. 


CHAPTER    IX. 


PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS    AND    INCIDENTAL    MATTERS. 


§309. 

Cause  of  action  nuist  be  com- 

§32G. 

Taking  possession— Completing 

plete. 

evidence  of  title  or  right. 

310. 

Requisites  of  a  complete  cause 

327. 

Notice. 

of  action. 

328. 

Notice  for  inspection  of  docu- 

311. 

Damages  essential    to   a  com- 

ments. 

plete  cause  of  action. 

329. 

Effect  of  neglecting  to  take  pre- 

312. 

Exceptions   to    the    rule    that 

cautionary  measures. 

damages  must  be  shown. 

330. 

Arrangements  for  trial — Depo- 

313. 

Demand — When  necessary. 

sitions. 

314. 

Demand — How  made. 

331. 

Witnesses  and  subpoenas. 

315. 

Admissions  in  demand. 

332. 

Ascertaining  particulars  of 

316. 

Demand — When  waived  or  ex- 

claim. 

cused. 

333. 

Setting   forth   particulars  of 

317. 

Tender — When  necessary. 

claim. 

318. 

Implied  admissions  by  tender. 

334. 

Final  consultation  with  client. 

319. 

Tender — How  made. 

335. 

Notes  of  evidence. 

320. 

Tender— Effect  of. 

336. 

Trial  briefs. 

321. 

Tender  to  be  kept  good. 

337. 

Development  of  the  theory. 

322. 

Equitable  tender. 

338. 

AVitnesses  should  be  present — 

323. 

Waiver  of  tender. 

Depositions. 

324. 

Offer  to  perform. 

339. 

Care  required  in  taking  precau- 

325. 

Architects'  certificate — Engi- 
neer's estimates. 

tionary  measures. 

§  309.  Cause  of  action  must  be  complete. — No  recovery  is 
legally  possible  unless  the  cause  of  action  is  complete  at  the 
time  the  appeal  to  the  judicial  tribunal  to  enforce  it  is  made 
by  the  party  injured.  Mr.  Broom  says:  "In  the  first  place, 
then,  the  party  proposing  to  sue  should  satisfy  himself  that  he 
has  a  cause  of  action  against  the  defendant;  for,  at  the  trial, 
he  will  have  to  prove  that  a  right  of  action  was  vested  in  liim 
before  he  commenced  his  suit."^  Acts  performed  after  tlie 
action  is  commenced  may  be  available  as  evidence,  but  they 


>  Broom's  Com.,  Ill  ;  AVesternXTnion     N.  E.  R.  694;  People  r.  Holladay,  93 
Telegraph  Co.  r.  Yopst,  118  Ind.  248;     Cal.  241,  S.  C.  27  Am.  St.  R.  186. 
Brickey  i'.  Irwin,  122  Ind.  51,  S.  C.  28 

(387) 


388  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  310 

can  not  constitute  elements  of  the  cause  of  action.  The  right 
of  the  plaintiff  and  the  wrong  of  the  defendant  arise  out  of 
facts  in  existence  at  the  time  the  action  was  begun.  Whether 
the  facts  which  constitute  the  right  of  which  the  plaintiff  de- 
mands a  vindication  be  of  great  or  little  importance,  they  must 
exist  at  the  time  the  complaint  or  declaration  on  which  issue 
is  joined  is  filed. ^  The  great  facts  which  constitute  the  cause 
of  action,  no  effort  of  the  advocate  can  bring  into  existence, 
and  he  would  dishonor  himself  and  his  profession  by  attempt- 
ing to  fabricate  or  procure  evidence  which  should  make  it  ap- 
pear that  they  did  exist.  But  there  are  minor  facts,  essential 
to  a  complete  cause  of  action,  which  it  is  his  duty  to  bring  into 
existence.  This  duty  he  may  justly  perform  by  directing  and 
advising  his  client,  although  he  can  not  always  with  strict 
propriety  jDcrform  the  acts  himself.  For  the  most  part  these 
subordinate  facts  are  such  as  are  necessary  to  put  the  plaintiff 
entirely  in  the  right  and  the  defendant  wholly  in  the  wrong. 
Although  these  facts  are  minor  ones,  and  merely  supplement 
the  main  facts,  yet  unless  they  are  brought  into  existence  the 
advocate  will  be  humiliated  by  an  utter  discomfiture,  even 
though  the  principal  facts  of  his  client's  cause  of  action  are 
strong  enough  to  repel  all  assaults. 

§  310.   Requisites  of  a  complete  cause  of  action. — It  may  be 

said   in  a   general  way  that  the  cause   of    action  is   complete 

»  Dean  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  119  v.  Tillman,  84  Ga.  401,  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R. 
N.  Y.  540,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  1054;  355;  Holmes,  etc.,  Co. «.  Holmes,  etc., 
Kaley  ■«.  Musgrave,  26  111.  App.  509;  53  Hun,  52.  As  illustrating  the  doc- 
Kahn  ?;.  Cook,  22  111.  App.  559;  Boat-  trine  of  the  text  in  a  peculiar  form 
men's  Savings  Bank  v.  McMenamy,  35  may  be  cited  the  case  of  Bynum  v. 
Mo.  App.  198;  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sette-  Burke  County,  101  N.  Car.  412,  S.  C.  8 
gast,  79  Texas,  256,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  S.  E.  R.  136,  wherein  it  was  held  that 
228;  Henderson  v.  Three  Hundred  a  suit  was  prematurely  brought  to  con- 
Tons  of  Iron  Ore,  38  Fed.  R.  36.  In  test  the  validity  of  an  election  because 
illustration  of  the  rule  stated  in  the  the  result  of  the  election  had  not  been 
text  we  may  instance  cases  in  which  declared  by  the  proper  officers.  See, 
it  is  held  that  full  performance  of  a  as  to  necessity  of  disaffirming  contract 
condition  precedent  pending  the  ac-  before  suing,  Lange  v.  Dammier,  119 
tion  will  not  be  sufficient.  Read  v.Buf-  Ind.  567,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  749. 
fum,  79  Cal.  77,  21  Pac.  R.  555 ;  Baker 


§  310  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  389 

when  the  plaintiff  lias  done  what  liis  contract  requires  or  the 
law  exacts,  and  the  defendant  has  not  done  what  his  contract 
required  of  him,  or  has  violated  some  duty  imposed  upon  hira 
by  law,  and  by  his  breach  of  contract  or  violation  of  duty  has 
caused  legal  harm  or  loss  to  the  }»laiiitiff.  11'  there  is  wrong- 
ful default  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  and  no  fault  or  breach 
of  duty  on  the  plaintiff's  part,  the  latter  may,  in  many  in- 
stances, recover  money  immediately  although  if  the  defendant 
had  performed  his  ])urt  of  the  contract  the  right  to  sue  would' 
be  postponed,  or  the  right  to  recover  be  limited  to  the  recovery 
of  property.  Thus,  on  the  tender  of  a  deed  by  the  vendor  of 
land  and  the  refusal  of  the  vendee  to  execute  promissory  notes 
as  provided  in  the  contract  of  sale  the  vendor  may  maintain 
an  action  for  the  contract  price  of  the  land,  but  if  the  defend- 
ant in  such  a  case  tenders  the  notes  and  mortgage  no  action 
could  be  maintained  until  the  maturity  of  the  notes. ^  So,  if  a 
vendor  of  land  refuses  to  convey  land  he  has  agreed  to  convey 
the  vendee  may  upon  tender  of  the  purchase-money  unpaid 
elect  to  treat  the  contract  as  rescinded  and  sue  the  vendor  for 
the  purchase-money  paid  to  him.^  The  cases  to  which  we 
have  referred  are  in  reality  but  instances  of  the  application  of 
the  wide-reaching  general  principle  that  if  a  party  repudiates 
his  contract  or  refuses  when  duly  requested  to  perform  his  part 

'  Russell  I'.  Englehardt,  24  Mo.  App.  Gillet  r.  :Maynard,  5  Johns.  85;  Van 

36;    Dunsworth  v.  "Walter  A.  Wood  Van  Benthuj'sen  ?».  Crapser,  8  Johns. 

Machine  Co.,  29  111.   App.  23.    The  259;  Frost  v.  Smith,?  Bosw.  108.  In  the 

rule  is,  of  course,  the  same  with  re-  case  first  named  it  was  said :    "Where 

spect  to  personal  property.     Stephen-  the  vendor  under  such  contract,  on 

son  V.  Repp,  47  Ohio  St.  551,  S.  C.  25  tender  of  the  balance  of  thepurchase- 

N.  E.  R.  803;  Trowbridge  r.  Holcomb,  price,  refuses  or  neglects  to  convey, 

4  Ohio   St.  38,  44;    Newman   v.   Mc-  his  default  authorizes  the  vendee  to 

Gregor,  5   Ohio,  349;  Sperry  r.  John-"  treat  the  contract  as  at  an  end,  and  to 

son,   11   Ohio,   452,  454;     Mettler  v.  recover  the  money  which   has  been 

Moore,  1  Blackf.  342;  Baker  r.  Mair,  paid."   See,  generally.  Camp  r.  Morse, 

12  Mass.  121;    Brooks  v.  Hubbard,  3  5  Denio,  161;    Jenners  v.  Spraker,  2 

Conn.  58;  Finney  r.  Gleason,  5  Wend.  Ind.  App.  Ct.  100,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R. 

393;  Perry  v.  Smitli,  22  Vt.  301 ;  Smith  117;  Taylor  v.  Hodges,  105  N.  C.  344, 

V.  Smith,    2   Johns.  235;    Mussen   v.  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R.  156;  Fields  v.  Baum, 

Price,  4  East,  147.  35  Mo.  App.  511. 

"Chatfield  v.  Williams,  85  Cal.  518; 


390  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  311 

of  the  contract  the  adverse  party  may  sue  for  an  entire  breach 
of  the  contract.^ 

§  311.   Damages  essential  to  a  complete  cause  of  action. — 

The  general  rule  is  that  actual  damages  must  be  shown  or  there 
is  no  cause  of  action.  This  general  rule  is  strikingly  illustrated 
by  the  cases  which  decide  that  fraud  without  damages  does  not 
entitle  a  party  to  relief  at  law  or  in  equity. ^  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, sufficient  that  damages  be  shown,  since  in  order  to  con- 
stitute a  complete  cause  of  action  a  wrongful  injury  must  also 
be  shown. ^  The  principle  we  have  just  stated  finds  expression 
in  the  familiar  maxim:  '^ Damnum  absque  injuria."^  Under 
the  general  rule  we  have  stated,  it  often  becomes  necessary  for 
the  advocate  to  secure  the  performance  of  such  acts  as  will  en- 
able him  to  produce  evidence  establishing  a  right  to  damages. 
It  is  sometimes  necessary  to  exercise  care  in  securing  credible 
and  competent  expert  witnesses  to  show  the  extent  of  the  loss 
sustained,  as  in  cases  of  injuries  to  the  person;  in  other  cases 
it  is  necessary  to  provide  for  evidence  of  facts  which  will  en- 

'  Sullivan  v.  McMillan,  26  Fla.  543,  8  gives  no  cause  of  action ;  but  where 
So.  R.  450;  Price  r.  Vanstone,  40  Mo.  these  two  concur  an  action  lies." 
App.  207 ;  Moore  v.  Garner,  101  N.  C.  This  general  rule  of  the  text  is  illus- 
374,  S.  C.  7  S.  E.  R.  732;  Fenton  v.  trated  by  the  cases  which  hold  that 
Alsip,  79  Cal.  402,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  839;  a  judgment  will  not  be  reversed  for  a 
Davenport  v.  Ladd,  38  Minn.  545,  S.  failure  to  award  merely  nominal  dam- 
C.  38  N.  W.  R.  622 ;  Bogle  v.  Gordon,  ages.  Norman  v.  Winch,  65  Iowa,  263 ; 
39  Kan.  31,  S.  C.  17  Pac.  R.  857 ;  Dut-  Case  Threshing  Machine  Co.v.  Haven, 
ton  V.  Solomonson,  3  Bos.  &  P.  582 ;  65  la.  359 ;  Wimberg  v.  Schwegeman, 
Hoskins  v.  Duperoy,  9  East,  498 ;  97  Ind.  528 ;  Mahoney  v.  Robbins,  49 
Hutchinson  v.  Reid,  3  Campb.  329;  Ind.  146;  Watson  v.  Van  Meter,  43 
Niland  v.  Murphy,  73  Wis.  326,  S.  C.  la.  76;  Black  v.  Coan,  48  Ind.  385; 
41  N.  W.  R.  335.  Patton  v.  Hamilton,  12  Ind.  256;  Tate 

MViley  V.   Howard,    15    Ind.    169;     v.  Booe,  9  Ind.  13. 
Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288,  8        ^  Qjty  of  ^orth  Vernon  v.  Voegler, 
Law.R.Anno.805,  S.  C.46N.W.R.128;     103  Ind.  314,318;    Cooley  on  Torts, 
National    Copper    Co.    v.   Minnesota    62,  81. 

Mining  Co.,  57  Mich.  83,  S.  C.  58  Am.        *  Broom's  Legal  Maxims,195 ;  Weeks 
R.  333,  S.  C.  23  N.  W.  R.  781.     In    Damnum  Absque  Injuria,  7 ;  Broom's 
Pasley  v.  Freeman,  3  T.  R.  51,  it  was    Com.   (4th  ed.)  75,  621;    Cooley   on 
said  by  Butler,  J.,  that :    "Fraud  with-    Torts,  81. 
out  damage,  or  damage  without  fraud, 


§  312  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  391 

haiice  or  augment  the  amount  of  recovery,  as  in  cases  where 
interest  is  sought  to  be  recovered  upon  a  claim  or  where  a  re- 
covery of  a  penalty  annexed  by  contract  or  by  law  to  a  breach 
of  contract  or  violation  of  duty  is  sought.  In  such  cases,  and 
in  those  of  a  kindred  character,  the  proper  precautionary  meas- 
ures must  be  taken  or  there  is  danger  of  complete  defeat  or  of 
a  serious  reduction  of  the  amount  of  recovery. 

§  312.   Exceptions  to  the  rule  that  damages  must  be  shown. 

— There  is,  it  is  obvious,  a  class  of  cases  where  a  right  of  ac- 
tion may  exist,  although  the  complainant  may  have  no  prop- 
erty right  or  pecuniary  interest  in  the  relief  he  seeks.  Thus, 
an  elector  of  the  State  may  have  a  right  to  the  writ  of  manda- 
mus to  compel  public  officers  to  discharge  imperative  duties 
imposed  upon  them  by  law,  although  he  may  not  have  a  direct 
money  or  property  interest  in  the  performance  of  such  duties. 
But  cases  of  the  kind  referred  to  are  extraordinary  ones,  and 
are  not  governed  by  the  rules  which  control  actions  or  suits 
concerning  ordinary  controversies  relative  to  the  rights  of  per- 
sons or  things.  There  is,  however,  an  important  class  of  cases, 
wherein  the  rights  of  property  are  involved,  in  which  a  suit 
may  be  maintained,  although  at  the  time  it  was  brought  no 
actual  damages  had  accrued.  The  class  of  cases  to  which  we 
refer  are  those  wherein  the  failure  of  a  property-owner  to  vin- 
dicate his  right  may  result  in  its  loss  to  him  by  lapse  of  time.^ 
This  doctrine  was  applied  to  the  case  of  a  mill  owner  who  pros- 
ecuted an  action  against  another  owner  for  the  wrongful  diver- 
sion of  a  watercourse,  and  it  was  held  that  the  action  would 
lie  although  no  actual  damages  had  accrued. ^     The  rule  has 

'  See  Cooley  on  Torts,  63-66.  into  an  examination  of  tliis  subject, 

*  Webb   V.   The  Portland  Manufac-  my  judgment  is,  that  whenever  there 

turing  Co.,  3  Sumn.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  189.  is  a  clear  violation  of  a  right  it  is  not 

In  the  case  cited  the  old  cases  were  necessary  in  an  action  of  this  sort  to 

very  fully  reviewed  by  Judge  Story,  show  actual  damage,  and  if  no  other 

and  he  stated  some  propositions  which  be  proved  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  a 

it  is  probable  the  modern  cases  would  verdict  for  nominal  damages.     And, 

hardly  sustain.     In  the  course  of  his  a  fortiori,   that  this  doctrine   applies 

opinion  the  learned  judge  said :   "Up-  whenever  the  act  done  is  of  such  a 

on  the  whole  without  going  farther  nature  as  that  by  its  repetition  or  con- 


392  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  315 

been  applied  to  cases  in  which  encroachments  upon  easements 
and  upon  public  ways  have  been  resisted  by  adjoining  land- 
owners having  an  interest  in  the  incorporeal  hereditament  as 
well  as  to  the  cases  where  land-owners  have  sought  to  prevent 
an  implied  dedication  of  a  highway  from  being  inferred  from 
long  continued  use  by  the  public.^ 

§  313.  Demand — When  necessary. — There  are  many  cases 
in  which  a  demand  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  cause  of 
action,  and  where  it  is  necessary  it  must  be  considered  as  one 
of  the  minor  facts  of  the  case  to  be  brought  into  existence  be- 
fore the  action  is  commenced.  Thus,  a  demand  is  necessary 
in  a  case  where  personal  property  is  purchased  by  the  defend- 
ant in  good  faith  from  an  agent  or  bailee;^  so  it  is  necessary  in. 
some  actions  for  a  breach  of  contract,  and  the  failure  to  deliver 
goods  or  pay  money;^  again,  it  is  necessary  in  actions  to  evict 
tenants;'*  and  so,  too,  it  is  necessar^^  in  an  action  by  a  principal 
against  an  agent  for  a  failure  to  pay  over  money  collected  by 
the  latter.^     As  a  general  rule  where  money  is  due  on  a  contract 

the  suit  itself  constitutes  a  sufficient  demand,^  although  there 
* 

tinuance  it  may  become  the  founda-  love,  46  Ind.  212.     But  a  demand  is  un- 

tion  or  evidence  of  an  adverse  right."  necessary  where  the  agent  denies  his 

See,  to  a  similar  effect.  Mason  v.  Hill,  liability,  so  that  a  demand  would  be 

3  Barn.  &  Ad.  304,  S.  C.  5   Barn.  &  fruitless.     Hammett  u.  Brown,  60  Ala. 

Ad.  1.  498. 

*  Attorney  General  r.Tarr,  148  Mass.  ^Olvey  v.  Jackson,  106  Ind.  286; 
309,  S.  C.  2  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  87,  19  N.  Frazee  v.  McChord,  1  Ind.  224 ;  Prince- 
E.  R.  358;  Ross  v.  Thompson,  78  Ind.  ton  v.  Gebhart,  61  Ind.  187;  Bradfleld 
90,  97;  Faustv.Cityof  Huntington, 91  v.  McCormick,  3  Blackf.  161;  Ross  ■;;. 
Ind.  493,  496;  Kyle  v.  Board  of  Com-  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Ind.  297; 
missioners,  94  Ind.  115,  118.  Ferguson  v.  State,  90  Ind.  38;  Kraft 

»  Amos  V.  Sinnot,  4  Scam.  (111.)  440;  v.  Thomas,  123  Ind.  513;  Brackett  v. 

Thompson  v.  Shirley,  1  Esp.  N.  P.  C.  Evans,  1  Cush.  79;  Andrews  v.  Frye, 

31.  104  Mass.  234;    Niemeyer  v.  Brooks, 

3  Frazee  v.   McChord,    1    Ind.  224;  44  111.77;  Union  Cent.  Life  Ins.  Co. 

High  V.  Board,  92  Ind.  580;  Davis  v.  v.  Curtis,  35  Ohio  St.  357.     See,  gen^ 

Doherty,  69  Ind.  11.  erally.  Watt  v.  Pittman,  125  Ind.  168, 

*  Doev.Wandlars,  7T.  R.  117 ;  Jones  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  191 ;  Stevens  Point, 
V.  Temple,  87  Va.  210,  12  S.E.  R.  404.  etc..  Bank  v.  Kickbush,  78  Wis.  218, 

*  Jones  V.  Gregg,  17  Ind.  84 ;  Hon  v.  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  267. 
Hon,  70  Ind.  135;  Heddens  v.  Young- 


§   313  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  395 

are  cases  in  which  the  nature  and  wording  of  the  contract  may- 
be such  as  to  render  a  demand  necessary  in  order  to  maintain 
an  action  thereon  for  the  payment  of  money. ^  Where  a  con- 
tract is  payable  in  goods  on  demand  or  at  no  definite  time  or 
place  a  demand  is  necessary  to  complete  the  cause  of  action. '■^ 
So,  as  a  general  rule,  demand  and  notice  are  neces.sary  to  sup- 
port an  action  upon  a  coHateral  undertaking. "^  But  where  the 
law  makes  it  the  duty  of  a  public  officer  or  a  person  acting  in 
a  trust  capacity  to  pay  over  money  at  a  stated  time,  no  demand 
is  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  a  suit  on  his  bond.*  The 
holder  of  a  bill  or  note,  in  order  to  charge  the  drawer  or  in- 
dorser,  must  demand  payment  of  the  drawee  or  maker  and  give 
reasonable  notice  of  the  latter's  failure  to  pa}'-,  unless  some 
good  excuse  is  shown  for  failing  to  do  so.^  A  demand  may 
also  be  necessary  to  support  an  action  ex  delicto.^  Where  the 
defendant  is  in  the  rightful  possession  of  personal  property, 
not  claiming  it  as  his  own,  and  ready  to  surrender  it  to  the 
true  owner,  or  in  any  case  where  his  original  taking  was  not 
wrongful  and  there  has  been  no  conversion,  a  demand  is  nec- 
essary before  an  action  of  replevin  or  trover  can  be  maintained 
against  him.''     But  where  there  has  been  an  actual  conversion 

'Bolles  V.  Stearns,  11    Cush.    320;  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  112 U.  S.  696;  Union 

Sweetland  v.  Barrett,  4  Mont.  217.  Bank  v.  Willis,  8  Mete.  (Mass.)  504,  S. 

'Bradley  r.  Farrington,  4  Ark.  532;  C.   41    Am.   Dec.   541;   Tiedeman  on 

Frazee  r.  ^IcChord,  1  Ind.  224;  Mar-  Commercial  Paper,  §  310. 

tin  V.  Chauvin,  7  Mo.  277;   State  v.  ®Griswold  v.  Burroughs,  15  N.  Y. 

Mooney,  65  Mo.  494 ;  Widnerr. Walsh,  Supp.  314,  S.  C.  67  Hun,  558;    Nunn 

3  Colo.  548;  Norris  ?'.  Milwaukee  Dock  v.  Home  Insurance  Co.,  31  Neb.  39, 

Co.,  21  Wis.  130;  Wyatt  v.  Bailey,  1  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  467;    Lonsdale  v. 

Morr.  (Iowa)  396.  Nelson,  2  Barn.  &  Cress.  302;    Pen- 

'Januarj' r.  Duncan,  3  McLean,  C.  ruddock's    Case,    5   Co.    101;     Ehle 

C.    19;    Rhodes   v.    Morgan,  1   Baxt.  v.  Deitz,  32  111.  App.  547;  Ashcroft  r. 

(Tenn.)  360.  Bertles.  6  T.  R.  652;  Ex  parte  Lands- 

♦Higgins    V.    State,    87    Ind.    282;  down,  5  East,  38. 

Moore  V.  State,  55  Ind.  360;  Hudson  'Sturgis  v.  Preston,  134  Mass.  372; 

V.  State,  54  Ind.  378.  Metcalf  r.  McLaughlin,  122  Mass.  84; 

*  Wood  V.  Surrells,  89  111.  107 ;    Gal-  Campbell  r.  Jones,  38  Cal.  507 ;  Sherry 

pin  V.  Hard,  3  McCord  (So.  Car.),  394,  v.  Picken,  10  Ind.  375;  Lewis  r.  Mas- 

S.  C.  15  Am.  Dec.  640;  Green  v.  Lou-  ters,  8  Blackf.  244;  Roberts  r.  Norris, 

thain,  49  Ind.  l.SO;   Do  Panw  r.  Bank,  67  Ind.  386;    Torian    r.    McClure,  83 

126  Ind.  553;  Knickerbocker  Life  Ins.  Ind.  310;  Chapin  p.  Siger.  4  McLean 


394 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§313 


by  the  defendant,  or  where  his  original  taking  was  wrongful, 
no  demand  is  necessary. ^  In  an  action  for  the  settlement  of 
partnership  accounts  a  demand  should  be  made  before  suit.^ 
So,  a  demand  for  a  deed  should  precede  a  suit  on  a  contract  for 
the  conveyance  of  land,  unless  the  defendant  denies  his  liabil- 
ity on  the  contract,  or  unless  there  is  some  other  good  excuse 
for  not  making  a  demand.^  There  are  also  cases  in  which  it 
is  important  to  make  a  demand  on  account  of  its  effect  upon 
the  amount  of  recovery.  Thus,  in  the  absence  of  some  agree- 
ment, express  or  implied,  interest  can  not  be  recovered  on  an 
unliquidated  claim  until  after  a  demand  has  been  made.*  And 
there  are  many  other  cases  of  a  similar  nature.^ 


C.  C.  378 ;  Hardy  v.  Keeler,  56  111.  152 ; 
Witherspoon  v.  Blewett,  47  Miss.  570; 
Tripp  V.  Pulver,  2  Hun  (N.  Y.),  511; 
Gillett  V.  Roberts,  57  N.  Y.  28 ;  Adams 
V.  Wood,  51  Mich.  411;  Becker  v.Van- 
dercook,  54  Mich.  114. 

^La  Fayette,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Metcalf, 
40  Mo.  App.  494;  Hayes  v.  The  Mass- 
achusetts, etc.,  Co.,  125  111.  626,  S.  C. 
1  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  303;  Waller  v. 
BowUng,  108  N.  C.  289,  S.  C.  12  Lawy. 
R.  Anno.  261 ;  Hamilton  v.  Browning, 
94  Ind.  242;  Robinson  v.  Shatzley,  75 
Ind.  461 ;  Whitlock  v.  Heard,  13  Ala. 
776,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  73;  Magee  v. 
Scott,  9  Cush.  148,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec. 
49;  Perkins  v.  Barnes,  3  Nev.  557; 
Gilmore  v.  Newton,  9  Allen,  171 ;  Bal- 
lon V.  O'Brien,  20  Mich.  304 ;  Moriarty 
V.  Stofferan,  89  111.  528;  Galvin  v.  Ba- 
con, 11  Me.  28,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  258; 
Pease  v.  Smith,  61  N.  Y.  477;  Haas 
V.  Taylor,  80  Ala.  459 ;  Hake  v.  Buell, 
50  Mich.  89 ;  Guthrie  r. Olson,  44  Minn. 
404,  S.  C.  46  N.W.  R.  853.  No  demand 
is  necessary  before  bringing  an  action 
by  an  assignee  for  the  benefit  of  cred- 
itors in  a  case  where  a  creditor  fraud- 
ulently purchased  the  debtor's  prop- 
erty and  wrongfully  applied  it  to  the 
payment  of  his  own  debt.     Crampton 


V.  Valido  Marble  Co.,  60  Vt.  291,  S.  C. 
1  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  120.  Where  the 
trustees  of  a  corporation  misapply 
funds  a  precedent  demand  is  not  es- 
sential to  complete  the  cause  of  action. 
Ashton  V.  Dashaway  Association,  84 
Cal.  61,  62. 

»  Skillen  v.  Jones,  44  Ind.  136 ;  Krutz 
V.  Craig,  53  Ind.  561. 

'  Carpenter  v.  Lockhart,  1  Ind.  434 ; 
Harshman  v.  Mitchell,  117  Ind.  312; 
Mather  v.  Scoles,  35  Ind.  1;  Law  v. 
Henry,  39  Ind.  414. 

*  Taft  V.  Stoddard,  142  Mass,  545,  S. 
C.  8  N.  E.  R.  586 ;  Barnard  v.  Bar- 
tholomew, 22  Pick.  291;  Feeter  v. 
Heath,  11  Wend.  479 ;  White  v.  Miller, 
78  N.  Y.  393;  Amee  v.  Wilson,  22  Me. 
116;  note  to  Selleck  v.  French,  6  Am. 
Dec.  188;  Gammell  v.  Skinner,  2  Gall. 
(U.  S.)  45;  Whereatt  v.  Ellis,  68  Wis. 
61;  Hall  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  55 
Iowa,  612. 

^Rayner  v.  Bryson,  29  Md.  473; 
Ford  V.  Tirrell,  9  Gray,  401,  S.  C.  69 
Am.  Dec.  297;  Butler  v.  Austin,  64 
Cal.  3;  Cruikshank  v.  Comyns,  24  111. 
602;  Pierce  v.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  138  Mass. 
151;  Walker?;.  Bradley,  3  Pick.  261; 
Simons  V.Walter,  1  McCord  (So.  Car.), 
97;  Scudder  v.   Morris,  3  N.  J.  L.  13, 


§  314  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  395 

§  314.  Demand — How  made. — The  advocate  is  required  in 
many  cases  to  direct  when,  where,  how  and  of  whom  demand 
shall  be  made,  for  it  must  be  made  of  the  proper  person,^  at 
the  right  time  and  place, ^  and  in  a  correct  form.^  Thus,  it 
must  be  made  upon  the  party  whose  duty  it  is  to  perform  the 
contract  or  do  the  act,  or  upon  his  agent,  attorney  or  other 
representative  duly  authorized  to  act  in  the  premises.*  But  a 
demand  upon  one  partner  or  upon  one  of  two  persons  jointly 
liable  is  generally  sufficient.^  If  an  agent  dies  indebted  to  his 
principal,  demand  should  be  made  upon  his  administrator.^ 
It  must  be  made  at  a  reasonable  time  and  place,  but  where  one 
resting  under  a  duty  to  make  a  demand  upon  a  certain  day 
was  prevented  by  a  restraining  order  procured  by  the  defend- 
ant, it  was  held  that  he  might  make  it  immediately  after  the 
restraining  order  was  dissolved,'^  and  a  demand  made  on  the 
defendant  after  sunset  and  about  five  hours  before  suit  was 
brought  was  held  reasonable  in  another  instance  under  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case.®  The  office,  or  the  house  of 
the  defendant  if  he  has  no  office,  is  an  appropriate  place  to 
make  a  demand.^     So,  a  demand  made  in  the  street,  if  not  ob- 

S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec.  382.     Where  a  mort-  where  the  defendant  is  absent  or  too 

gage  is  given  to  secure  an  agreement  ill  to  be  seen.     Morgan  v.  Gregg,  46 

to  support  the  mortgagee  during  life  a  Barb.  (N.Y.)  183;  Saunders  v.  Payne, 

demand  is  essential  to  give  a  complete  12  N.Y.  S.  735;  Cass  v.  New  York, 

cause  of  action.    Coleman  r.  Whitney,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.), 

62  Vt.  123,  S.  C.  9  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  517.  522 ;  Buxton  r.  Baughan,  6  C.  &  P.  (374. 

'  Goodwin  V.  Wertheimer,  99  N.  Y.  *  Holbrook  v.  Holbrook,  15  Me.  9; 

149;  Whitsell r.Wells, 24 Pick. (Mass.)  Ball  v.  Larkin,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.), 

25;  Lill  v.  Russell,  22  Wis.  178.  555.  After  the  partnership  is  dissolved, 

'  Bacon  r.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Ind.  however,  a  demand  must  generally  be 

229.  made  upon  each  of  the  partners.  Keith 

'Van  Rensselaer  r.  Jewett,  2  N.  Y.  v.  Sturges,  51  111.  142;  Pattee  r.  Gil- 

141.  more,  18  N.  H.  460,  S.  C.  45  Am.  Dec. 

*  Goodwin  r.  Wertheimer,  99  N.  Y.  385. 

149;  Mount  v.  Derick,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.),  "Judah  r.  Dyott,  3  Blackf.  324. 

455;  White  v.  Demary,  2  N.  H.  546;  'Pay  v.  Shanks,  o6  Ind.  554. 

Bridgeport  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  '  Richardson  r.  Learned, 10  Pick. 261. 

Co.,  30  Conn.  231.     A  demand  upon  a  '  Morse  i-.  Aldrich,  1  Mete.  (Mass.) 

clerk  or  a  writing  left  with  the  servant  544 ;  Spencer  v.  Storrs,  38  Vt.  156. 
of  the  defendant    mav    be   sullicient 


396  TIIK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  315 

jected  to,  may  be  sufficient.^  It  has  been  held  that  a  demand 
accompanied  by  abuse  and  insults  is  not  a  proper  demand,  but 
a  subsequent  demand  made  in  the  proper  manner  can  not  be 
ignored  by  the  defendant  on  the  ground  of  misconduct  of  the 
plaintiff  in  making  the  former  demand.^  No  stereotyped  form 
of  words  need  be  used,^  but  in  order  to  be  on  the  safe  side  the 
demand  should  be  unequivocal  and  should  clearly  indicate 
what  is  demanded  and  the  authority  of  the  person  making  it. 
Where,  however,  the  amount  to  which  the  plaintiff  is  entitled 
upon  a  breach  of  a  contract  is  clear  the  fact  that  he  has  de- 
manded too  much  will  not  defeat  his  action.^  Where  the  de- 
mand is  required  to  be  of  a  specific  character,  it  is  better  ta 
prepare  a  form  in  writing,  and  not  to  trust  to  oral  evidence. 
It  is  not  often  that  anything  more  than  a  demand  expressed 
in  general  terms  is  required,  but  there  are  cases  where  it  must 
be  of  a  specific  character.  Where  the  contract  prescribes,  either 
in  direct  terms  or  by  implication,  what  the  demand  shall  be, 
it  is  safest  to  make  it  in  writing.^  Where  there  is  doubt  as  to 
whether  a  formal  demand  is  necessary,  or  as  to  whether  it 
should  be  in  writing,  the  advocate  should  take  no  risks,  but 
should  cause  the  demand  to  be  specifically  made  in  writing. 

§  315.  Admissions  in  demand. — Mr.  Chitty  cautions  the  at- 
torney against  making  any  admission  in  a  demand,  or  other 
communication  to  the  adverse  party,  and  this  caution  should 
not  go   unheeded.'^      Although   it  is   a    little    aside  from   the 

'  Heard  v.  Lodge,  20  Pick.  53,  S.  C.  See  Woodward  v.  Davis,  127  Ind.  172, 

32  Am.  Dec.  197.  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  687 ;  Fort  Scott,  etc., 

« Boyden  v.  Burke,  14  How.  (U.  S.)  Co.  v.  Holman,  45  Kan.  167,  S.  C.  25 

575.  Pac.  R.  585. 

'Henry  v.  Harbison,  23  Ark.  25;  *  But,  in  the  absence  of  a  stipulation 
Merriam  u.  Lynch,  53  Wis.  82;  Apple-  in  the  contract  or  some  statutory  re- 
ton  V.  Barrett,  29  AVis.  221 ;  Kiefer  v.  quirement,  the  demand  need  not  nec- 
Carrier,  53  Wis.  404;  Buel  v.  Pum-  essarily  be  in  writing.  Colby  i'.  Reed, 
phrey,  2  Md.  261,  S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  99  U.S.  560.  The  statute  may  require 
714;  Peoples',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clark,  12  it  to  be  in  writing  in  certain  cases. 
Gray,  165.  Seem  v.  McLees,  24  111.  192. 

*  Colby  V.  Reed,  99  U.  S.  560.     See,        ^1  Chitty's   Gen.  Practice,  441;    2 

also,  Gragg  v.  Hull,  41  Vt.  217,  222;  Chitty's  Gen.  Practice,  56. 
Marine  Bank  v.  Fiske,  71  N.  Y.  353. 


^  31G  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  397 

subject  now  under  iiniii('<liuto  cun.sideratitMi,  yet  it  nuay  not  be 
inappropriate  to  add  a  caution  upon  a  kindred  topic.  Ad- 
missions sbould  be  sparingly  made,  and  only  after  calm  delib- 
eration. It  is  unsafe  to  make  tliem,  no  matter  what  their 
character,  otherwise  than  in  writing.  Experienced  attorneys 
strongly  advise  against  nuiking  any  except  upon  matters  of 
minor  importance,^  but  this  advice  hardly  goes  far  enough, 
for,  even  though  the  matter  has  apparently  little  influence 
upon  the  merits  of  the  case  or  the  conduct  of  the  trial,  no  ad- 
mission should  be  made  without  full  considerati(ui;  and  when 
made  should,  if  practicable,  be  written  out  in  full. 

§  316.  Demand — When  waived  or  excused. — The  law  does 
not  require  any  man  to  do  a  vain  and  fruitless  thing,  and 
where  a  formal  demand  would  be  unavailing  it  is  generally 
unnecessary.  The  conduct  of  the  defendant  in  denying  the 
plaintiff's  claim  in  toto,  or  in  expressly  refusing  performance 
in  advance  will  operate  as  a  waiver  of  a  formal  demand. ^  So, 
a  specific  objection  or  reason  for  not  complying  with  a  demand 
waives  all  other  objections  to  the  demand,^  and  an  offer  to  pay 
operates  as  a  waiver  of  objections  to  the  form  of  the  demand.* 
Where  the  defendant  is  concealed  or  is  a  non-resident  so  that 
the  plaintiff  is  unable  to  make  a  demand  upon  him,  it  will  be 
excused.^     So,  if  the  defendant  is  an  infant  of  tender  years, 

1  Warren's  Duties  of  Att'ys,  190 ;  3  Adams,  43  Ind.  447 ;  Heard  v.  Lodge, 

Chitty's  Gen.  Practice,  838.     "Admis-  20  Pick.  53,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  197; 

sions  are  mostly  made  by  those  who  Benjamin  v.  Zell,  100  Pa.  St.  33 ;  Remy 

do  not  know  their  importance."  Scin-  t\  Olds,  88  Cal.  537,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R. 

tillae  Juris.,  77.     "He  who  concedes  355. 

anything  is  to  be  considered  as  con-  '  Bartlett  v.    Adams,   43   Ind.  447; 

ceding  that  without  which  his  conces-  Weymouth   r.  Gorham,   22  Me.  38.5; 

sion  would  1)0  idle,  without  which  the  Baxter  r.  McKinlay,  ItJCal.  7(5 ;  Spence 

thing  itself  could  not  exist."  11  Coke,  v.  Mitchell,  9  Ala.  744;  Thompson  v. 

52.     See,  also,  Troup  v.  Hulburt,  10  Rose,  16  Conn.  71,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec. 

Barb.  354;  People  v.  Hicks,  15  Barb.  121. 

153.  ♦  Bank  V.  Wister,  2  Peters  (U.  S.), 

"Abels  V.  Glover,  15  La.  Ann.  247;  318. 

Toney  v.  Toney,  73  Ind.  34;  Harsh-  ^Jenks  i'.  School  Dist.,  18  Kan.  356; 

man  u.  Mitchell,  117  Ind.  312;  Hawes  Beckett  v.  Bledsoe.  4  Ind.  256;  West 

V.  Coombs,  34  Ind.  455;    Bartlett    r.  r.  Chase,  3  Ind.  301. 


398  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  317 

ami  there  is  no  one  representing  liira  upon  whom  a  demand 
would  be  availing,  it  may  be  excused.^  And  if  a  party  to  a 
contract,  before  the  time  fixed  for  performance,  renders  it  im- 
possible for  him  to  perform  his  part  of  the  contract,  no  demand 
is  necessary .2  So,  one  who  is  brought  into  court  by  another 
may  be  excused  from  making  a  demand  that  he  might  have 
been  required  to  make  if  he  had  been  the  moving  party. -^ 

§  317.  Tender — When  necessary. — A  tender  of  money  or 
goods  is  often  required  to  make  complete  the  cause  of  action,  or 
make  perfect  the  grounds  of  defense.  It  is  a  fundamental  maxim 
that  he  who  asks  equity  must  do  equity,  and  under  the  opera- 
tion of  this  rule  a  tender  is  very  often  necessary  to  complete 
the  cause  of  action.  Thus,  where  a  tax  sale  is  invalid,  but 
the  defendant  has  paid  taxes  chargeable  against  the  property, 
the  right  of  action  is  not  complete  until  a  tender  has  been 
made.*  A  tender  is  required  in  cases  where  a  rescission  of  a 
contract  is  sought.''  A  suit  for  specific  performance  will  fail 
in  many  cases  unless  a  tender  has  preceded  the  suit.*^  In  many 
cases  there  must  be  a  tender  of  money  in  order  to  maintain  an 
action  for  a  breach  of  contract.  The  contract  may  sometimes 
require  a  tender  where,  but  for  the  language  of  the  instrument, 
none  would  be  exacted.'  A  tender  or  offer  of  performance  is 
often  essential  to  a  successful  defense.  It  is  sometimes  avail- 
able for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  damages,  and  then  may 
be  made  after  the  action  is  brought.  Where,  however,  it  is  re- 
lied on  to  defeat  the  claim  for  damages  and  costs  it  should  be 
made  before  the  plaintiff  commences  his  suit. 

§  318.    Implied  admissions  by  tender. — The  effect  of  a  valid 

'  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Oakes,  dianapolis  v.  Gilmore,   30  Ind.  414. 

20  Ind.  9.  But  see  Hanscom  v.  Hinman,  30  Mich. 

*  Boyle  V.  Guysinger,  12  Ind.  273 ;  419. 

Wilstach  V.  Hawkins,  14  Ind.  541.  *  Cain  v.  Guthrie,  8  Blackf.  409. 

^  Stix  V.  Sadler,  109 Ind.  254 ;  Harsh-  "  2  Pomeroy's  Eq.  Juris.,  §  1407. 

man  v.  Mitchell,  117  Ind.  312.  '  McCulloch  v.  Dawson,  1  Ind.  413; 

♦Lomhard  v.  Hatch,  60  Wis.  459;  Wagers  v.  Dickey,  17  Ohio,  439,  S.  C. 

Belz  V.  Bird,  31  Kan.  139;  City  of  In-  49  Am.  Dec.  467. 


§  319  PRKCAUTIONAKY    STEPS  399 

tender  is  to  admit  a  liability  to  the  extent  of  tlie  sum  tendered,' 
but  it  has  been  held  that  such  an  admission  is  not  conclusive 
where  too  much  has  been  tendered.^  It  is,  however,  the  gen- 
eral rule  that  an  effective  tender  concedes  the  amount  tendered 
to  be  due.  The  admission  is  so  far  effective  as  to  impose  upon 
the  party  making  it  the  burden  of  explaining  the  implied  ad- 
mission. 

§  319.  Tender — How  made. — The  tender  may  be  made  by 
the  debtor  or  his  agent.'*  It  is  essential  that  the  tender  be  made 
by  the  proper  party,  inasmuch  as  the  creditor  is  not  bound  to 
receive  money  from  other  persons  than  his  debtor.  Thus,  it  is 
held  that  a  tender  by  two  persons  in  a  suit  to  redeem  from  a 
sale  made  for  taxes  is  insufficient  if  only  one  of  them  is  enti- 
tled to  redeem.^  It  seems  to  us  that  where  two  persons  join  in 
making  a  tender  in  an  equitable  proceeding,  if  it  is  valid 
as  to  one,  the  court  might,  upon  proper  explanation,  relieve 
from  the  consequences  of  the  mistake  upon  just  terms  as  to 
costs  or  the  like.  The  tender  may  be  made  either  to  the  cred- 
itor or  any  one  who  is  authorized  to  receive  it  for  him.®  It 
may  be  made  to  an  attorney  in  whose  hands  the  claim  has  been 

'Monroe  r.  Chaldeck,  78  111.  429;  min,  3  Campb.  40.  It  also  admits  the 
Martin  v.  Whisler,  62  la.  416 ;  Latham  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  sue  in  the  char- 
V.  Hartford,  27  Kan.  249;  Schnur  v.  acter  in  which  he  sues.  Miller  r.AVil- 
Hickcox,  45  Wis.  200 ;  Simpson  r.  Car-  liams,5  Esp.  19 ;  Lipscombe  v.  Holmes, 
son,  11  Ore.  361;  Jones  v.  Hoar,  5  2  Campb.  441.  But,  altliough  part  of 
Pick.  (Mass.)  285;  Frink  v.  Coe,  4  G.  a  demand  is  paid  into  court,  the  de- 
Greene  (Iowa),  555,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  fendant  may  plead  the  statute  of  lim- 
141 ;  Burrough  v.  Skinner,  5  Burr,  itations  as  to  the  remainder.  Long  v. 
2639;  Cox  v.  Parry,  1  Term  Rep.  464.  Greville,  4  D.  &  R.  632. 
The  general  rule  is  that  money  ten-  *  Abel  v.  Opel,  24  Ind.  250. 
dered  and  paid  into  court  can  not  be  ^Rhodes  v.  Andrews  (Ark.),  13  S. 
withdrawn.  Kansas  City  Transfer  Co.  'W.  R.  422. 

V.  Neiswanger,  27  Mo.  App.  856.  It  also  *  Kincaid  r.  School  Dist.,  11  Me.  188 ; 

admits,  as  a  general  rule,  the  contract  Brown  r.  Dysinger,  1  Rawle  (Pa.),  408. 

declared  on.     Yate  v.  AVillan,  2  East,  ^  Bender  v.  Bean,  52  Ark.  132,  S.  C. 

128;  Stoveldu.  Brewin,  2  Barn.  &  Aid.  12  S.  W.  R.  141. 

116.  And  may  I'ender  proof  of  the  *  King  u.  Finch,  60  Ind.  420;  Horn- 
contract  unnecessarj'.  Gutteridge  v.  by  u.  Cramer,  12  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  490. 
Smith,  2  H.  B.  374;  Israel  v.  Benja- 


400 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§319 


placed  for  collection/  to  a  clerk  authorized  to  receive  it,"^  to  a 
husband  as  agent  for  his  wife,^  or  to  one  of  several  joint  cred- 
itors.^ There  are  many  tilings  which  must  concur  to  make  a 
tender  good.  As  a  general  rule  it  must  be  unconditional.^ 
Where  it  is  on  a  money  demand  it  must  be  made  in  gold  and 
silver,  or  in  bills  made  by  positive  law  a  legal  tender.*^  It 
should  be  of  the  correct  amount,'^  but  a  tender  of  a  larger  sum 
than  is  actually  due  is  not  necessarily  bad  if  the  creditor  can 


'  Jackson  r.  Crafts,  18  Johns.  (N.Y.) 
110;  Mclniffe  v.  Wheelock,  1  Gray 
(Mass.),  600. 

'■'  Oatmanr'.  Walker,  33  Me.  67  ;  Hoyt 
r.  Byrnes,  11  Me.  475.  But  not  to  an 
ordinary  servant  in  the  absence  of  the 
master.  Jewett  v.  Earle,  53  N.  Y.  Su- 
perior Ct.  349. 

^  Conrad  v.  Druids  Grand  Grove,  64 
Wis.  258. 

^Prescott  V.  Everts,  4  Wis.  314; 
Douglas  V.  Patrick,  3  Term  Rep.  683. 

"Bevans  v.  Rees,  5  M.  &  W.  306; 
Buffumfj.Buffum,  UN.  H.451;  Storey 
V.  Krewson,  55  Tnd.  397,  S.  C.  23  Am 
R.  668;  Sanford  v.  Bulkley,  30  Conn 
344;  Wood  v.   Hitchcock,    20  Wend 
(N.  Y)  47 ;  Odum  v.  Rutledge  &  J.  R 
R.  Co.,   94  Ala.  488,  S.  C.  10  So.  R 
222;    Rose  v.  Duncan,   49   Ind.   269 
Elderkin    v.    Fellows,    60  Wis.    339; 
Henderson  v.  Cass  Co.,   107  Mo.  50, 
S.  C.  18   S.  W.  R.   992;    Latham    v. 
Hartford,    27    Kan.   249.     See,    also, 
for  many  other  authorities,  the  notes 
to  Brown  v.  Gilmore,  22  Am.  Dec.  223 ; 
Behaly  v.   Hatch,   12  Am.  Dec.  570; 
Moynahan  v.  Moore,  77  Am.  Dec.  468, 
476.     But  there  are  cases  in  which  a 
tender  may  be  conditional.     Wheel- 
ock V.  Tanner,  39  N.  Y.  481 ;  Lough- 
borough V.  McNevin,  74  Cal.  250,  S.  C. 

5  Am.  St.  R.  435;  Strafford  v.  Welch, 
59  N.  H.  46;  Cass  v.  Higenbotam,  100 
N.  Y.  248. 

«  Collier  v.  White,  67  Miss.  1.33,  S.  C. 

6  So.  R.  618  ;  Summerson  v.  Hicks,  134 


Pa.  St.  566;  Boyd  v.  Olvey,  82  Ind. 
294;  Cornell  v.  Green,  10  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  14;  Jones  «.  Mullinix,  25  Iowa, 
98;  Bowen  v.  Clark,  46  Ind.  405;  Peo- 
ple V.  Cook,  44  Cal.  638 ;  Knox  v.  Lee, 
12Wall.(U.S.)457;  McGoonv.  Shirk, 
54  111.  408,  S.  C.  5  Am.  R.  122;  Mc- 
Clarin  v.  Nesbit,  2  Nott  &  McC.  (So. 
Car.)  519 ;  Dubuque  v.  Miller,  11  Iowa, 
583.  And  there  are  cases  in  which 
the  contract  may  expressly  require  the 
tender  to  be  made  in  a  certain  kind  of 
money.  The  entire  subject  is  discussed 
and  the  authorities  are  reviewed  in  an 
article  in  17  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  745, 
entitled  "The  Requisites  of  a  Valid 
Tender."  In  Sanders  v.  Bryer,  152 
Mass.  141,  S.  C.  9  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  255, 
25  N.  E.  R.  86,  the  party  tendered  the 
money  due  upon  an  executory  contract 
for  the  purchase  of  land  and  demand- 
ed a  deed.  After  making  the  tender 
and  demand  he  deposited  the  money 
in  bank  and  it  was  held  that  he  was 
bound  to  pay  interest  on  the  sum  due 
and  could  not  have  specific  perform- 
ance without  paying  or  tendering  the 
interest. 

'Robinson  v.  Cook,  6  Taunt.  336; 
Betterbee  v.  Davis,  3  Camp.  70 ;  Dixon 
V.  Clark,  5  Com.  B.  365;  Fridge  v. 
State,  3  Gill.  &.  J.  (Md.)  103,  S.  C.  20 
Am.  Dec.  463;  Brandt  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  26 
Iowa,  114;  Helphrey  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  29 
Iowa,  480.  If  in  goods  or  chattels  the 
articles  must  be  separated  and  pointed 
out  from  otharsof  the  same  kind.  Wy- 


§  320 


PRECA  UTI O N A  K Y    STE P5 . 


401 


make  the  change  aud  docs  not  ()l)ject  to  the  amount.^  It  must 
be  made  at  the  proper  time  and  phicc,'-  and  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  made  must  be  given  an  opportunity  for  inspecting  it.'^ 
There  must  also  be  an  actual  offer  to  pay  at  the  time  and  place, 
and  the  money  or  article  tendered  must  be  actually  produced,* 
unless  the  creditor,  either  expressly  or  impliedly,  waives  its 
production.-''  But  tlie  tender  of  a  large  sum  of  money  in  purses 
or  bags  has  been  held  good.^ 

§  320.  Tender — Eflfeet  of. — In  some  jurisdictions  a  tender 
properly  made  and  pleaded  has  the  same  effect  as  actual  per- 
formance and  is  a  complete  answer  to  an  action  for  the  debt;'^ 
but  the  debtor  must  continue  ready  and  willing  to  pay  on  de- 
mand, and  the  benefit  of  the  tender  is  lost  by  a  subsequent  de- 
miand  and  refusal.^     The  tender  of  chattels  at  the  proper  time 


man  v.  Winslow,  11  Me.  398,  S  C.  26 
Am.  Dec.  542;  Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D. 
Chip.  Vt.  399,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  696, 
and  note. 

'  Douglas  V.  Patrick,  3 Term  Rep.683 ; 
Bevans  v.  Rees,  5  Mees.  &  W.306. 

*2  Wharton  on  Contracts,  §  990; 
Powe  V.  Powe,  42  Ala.  113;  Hall  v. 
Whittier,  10  R.  I.  530 ;  Wiggin  v.  Wig- 
gin,  43  N.  H.  561,  S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec. 
192 ;  Slingerland  v.  Morse,  8  Johns.  (X. 
y.)  474;  Larimore  v.  Ilornbaker,  21 
Ind.  430;  Bates  v.  Bates,  1  Miss.  401, 
S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  572,  and  note ;  Moyn- 
ahan  v.  Moore,  77  Am.  Dec.  468,  and 
note;  "Requisites  of  a  Valid  Tender," 
17  Am.  L.  Reg.  (U.  S.)  745. 

'  Startup?'.  Macdonald,  6  i\Ian.  &  G. 
593,  624;  Croninger  v.  Crocker,  62  N. 
Y.  151 ;  Potts  V.  Plaisted,  30  Mich.  149. 

*  Bakeman  v.  Pooler,  15  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  637;  Camp  v.  Simon,  34  Ala.  126; 
Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8Greenl.(Me.)107, 
S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  223 ;  Barney  v.  Bliss, 
1  D.  Chip.  (Vt.)  399,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec. 
696,  and  note;  Bowen  v.  Holly,  38  Vt. 
574 ;  Ladd  v.  Patten,  1  Cranch  C.  C. 
263;  Breed  v.  Kurd,  6  Pick.  (Mass.) 
26 


356;  Bacon  v.  Smith,  2  La.  Ann.  441, 
S.  C.  46  Am.  Dec.  549. 

*  Hazard  r.  Loring,  lOCush.  (Mass.) 
267;  Guthman  v.  Kearn,  8  Neb.  502; 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  12  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
137 ;  Appleton  v.  Donaldson,  3  Pa.  St. 
381 ;  Rudulph  v.  Wagner,  36  Ala.  698. 

«Behaly  v.  Hatch,  Walker  (Miss.), 
369,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  570;  Wade's 
Case,  5  Coke,  114  a. 

'  See  note  to  ]\Ioynahan  v.  Moore,  77 
Am.  Dec.  468,  488,  where  the  author- 
ities upon  both  sides  of  this  question 
are  collected. 

*  Bank  of  Benson  v.  Hove,  45  Minn. 
40,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  449;  Manny  v. 
Harris,  2  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  24,  S.  C.  3 
Am.  Dec.  386;  Dixon  v.  Clark,  5  Com. 
B.  365;  Pulsifer  v.  Shepard,  36  111. 
512;  Cary  i\  Bancroft,  14  Pick. (Mass.) 
315,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  393;  Rose  v. 
Brown,  Kirby,  293,  S.  C.  1  Am. Dec.  22 ; 
Burlock  r.  Cross,  16  Colo.  162,  26  Pac. 
R.  142.  In  McCalley  v.  Otey,  90  Ala. 
302,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  157,  it  is  "held  that 
after  a  refusal  it  is  unnecessary  to  keep 
the  identical  money  in  readiness.  See, 
generally,  Blain  r.  Foster,  33  HI.  App. 


402 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§321 


and  piace  vests  the  title  in  the  creditor,^  and  he  loses  his  right 
to  sue  upon  the  contract. ^  So,  a  tender  after  suit  may  stop  the 
running  of  interest  from  that  time,'^  and  it  prevents  the  recov- 
ery of  costs  which  subsequently  accrue.^  It  is  held  that  where 
the  tender  is  made  after  the  action  is  commenced  it  is  insuffi- 
cient unless  it  embraces  interest  and  accrued  costs. ^ 

§  321.  Tender  to  be  kept  good. — The  tender  must  be  kept 
good,*^  and,  in  order  that  this  may  be  done,  it  is  generally  nec- 
essary to  bring  the  money  into  court.''  Payment  to  a  referee 
has  been  held  insufficient.^  If  money  which  has  been  properly 
paid  into  court  to  keep  a  tender  good  is  afterward  withdrawn 
by  order  of  the  court,  the  validity  of  the  tender  will  not  be  af- 
fected by  such  withdrawal.^     But  a  tender  kept  good  by  bring- 


297 ;  Werner  v.  Tuch,  127  N.  Y.  217, 
S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  845. 
'  1  Dewey  v.  Washburn,  12  Vt.  580; 
Barney  V.  Bliss,  1  D.Chip.  (Vt.)  399,  S. 
C.  12  Am.  Dec.  696 ;  Lamb  v.  Lathrop, 
13  Wend.  (N.Y.)  95,  S.  C.  27  Am.  Dec. 
174;  Des  Artes  v.  Leggett,  16  N.  Y. 
582 ;  Bradshaw  v.  Davis,  12  Tex.  336. 
Contra,  Stowell  v.  Read,  16  N.  H.  20, 
S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec.  714;  McJilton  v. 
Smizer,  18  Mo.  111. 

2  Mitchell  V.  Merrill,  2  Blackf.  87,  S. 
C.  18  Am.  Dec.  128. 

^Raymond  v.  Bearnard,  12  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  274,  S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  317; 
Riley  tJ.  McNamara,  83  Tex.  11, 18S.W. 
Rep.  141;  Ilaynes  v.  Thorn,  28  N.  H. 
386;  Cornell  v.  Green,  10  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)14;  Woodruffs.  Trapnall,  12  Ark. 
640;  Dent  v.  Dunn,  3  Camp.  296. 

*  Murray  v.  Windley,  7  Ired.  (N. 
Car.)  201,  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec.  324;  Hills 
V.  Place,  48  N.  Y.  520;  Carpenter  v. 
Welch,  40  Vt.  251. 

*  Francis  v.  Deming,  59  Conn.  108,  S. 
C.  21  Atl.  R.  1006. 

« Tompkins  v.  Batie,  11  Neb.  147,  S. 
C.  38  Am.  Rep.  361 ;  Tuthillu.  Morris, 
81  N.Y.  94;    Stow  v.  Russell,  36  111. 


18 ;  Crain  v.  McGoon,  86  111.  431,  S.  C. 
29  Am.  Rep.  37,  and  note;  Aulger  v. 
Clay,  109  111.  487;  Miller -»;.  McGehee, 
60  Miss.  903 ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  Kirby 
(Conn.),  293,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec.  22,  and 
note ;  ' ' Requisites  of  a  Valid  Tender, ' ' 
17  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  745. 

^  Foster  v.  Fraser,  Montreal  Law  R. 
6  Q.  B.  405;  Allen  v.  Cheever,  61  N. 
H.  32;  Halpin  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  118 
N.  Y.  165;  Sanders  v.  Peck,  131  111. 
407;  Goss  v.  Bowen,  104  Ind.  207; 
Clark  V.  Mullenix,  11  Ind.  532 ;  Ben- 
ton V.  Shreeve,  4  Ind.  66;  Morrison  w. 
Jacoby,  114  Ind.  84;  Park  v.  Wiley,  67 
Ala.  310;  Matthews  v.  Lindsay,  20 
Fla.  962;  Hoffman  v.  Van  Dieman,  62 
Wis.  362 ;  Brooklyn  Bank  v.  DeGrauw, 
23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  342,  S.  C.  .35  Am. 
Dec.  569 ;  note  to  Moynahan  v.  Moore, 
77  Am.  Dec.  468,  482.  As  to  the  proper 
form  of  a  judgment  where  money  is 
in  court  but  tender  not  sufficient  in 
amount,  see  Goldstein  v.  Stern,  9  N. 
Y.  Supp.  274. 

8  Beckert).  Boon,  61  N.  Y.  317 ;  Wing 
V.  Hurl  hurt,  15  Vt.  607. 

9  Wright  V.  Young,  6  Wis.  127,  S.  C. 
70  Am.  Dec.  453. 


§   322  PRECAUTIONARY    STKr.-;.  403 

ing  the  money  into  court  is  generally  regarded  as  a  payment, 
which  can  not  be  withdrawn  by  the  defendant.^ 

§  322.  Equitablo  tender. — In  equity  the  rules  in  regard  to 
tender  are  not  quite  so  strict  as  in  law,  and  it  is  generally  suf- 
ficient to  offer  in  the  complaint  or  petition  to  pay  the  money 
into  court  or  perform  the  necessary  acts  to  keep  the  tender 
good. 2  There  is,  however,  a  class  of  cases  in  which  equity 
courts,  acting  upon  the  maxim  that  "He  who  asks  equity  must 
do  equity,"  will  require  a  strict  tender.  It  is  difficult  to  form- 
ulate with  exact  accuracy  general  rules  upon  this  subject,  but 
we  think  it  safe  to  state  the  following:  First.  Where  the  duty 
to  pay  or  perform  is  a  clear  one,  the  duty  imperative  and  the 
sum  due  admitted  or  clearly  evident,  there  must  be  a  strict 
tender  of  payment  or  performance.^  Second.  Where  the  sum 
is  not  admitted  or  clearly  evident  but  remains  to  be  ascertained 
upon  the  hearing  an  offer  of  performance  accompanied  by  a 
statement  of  ability,  readiness  and  willingness  to  perform  is 
sufficient.-*     It  is  probably  true  that  equity  will  not  allow  a 

^Reed  r.   Armstrong,   18  Ind.  446;  r.  Reilly,  61  Mo.  5(55;    Breitenbaeh  r. 

Barnes  v.  Bates,  28  Ind.  15.     Even  if  Turner,  18  Wis.140;  Kortrightr.  Cady, 

the  plaintiff  is  non-suited  he  is,  it  is  21  N.  Y.  343,  S.  C.  78  Am.  Dec.  145; 

held,    nevertheless    entitled    to    the  Moore  v.  Norman,  43  Minn.  428,  S.  C. 

money  paid  into  court.     Stevenson  v.  19  Am.  St.  R.  247. 

Yorke,   4  Term  Rep.  10;    Burstall  v.  ^  Baylor  v.  Reed,  5  T.  B.  Monr.  36; 

Homer,  7  Term  Rep.  368;    Elliott  v.  Daughdrill  v.  Sweeney,  41   Ala.  310; 

Callow,  2  Salk.  507.     Money  paid  into  Morrison  v.  Jacoby,  114  Ind.  84,95; 

court  in  a  case  in  which  such  payment  Bailey  v.  Atlantic,  etc., Co.,  1  Cent.L.J. 

is  not  proper  is  at  the  risk  of  the  party  418 ;  Werner  r.Tuch,  127  N.Y.  217,  S.C. 

who  pays  it;  he  must  bear  the  loss  if  24  Am.  St.  R.  443;  Hagaman  v.  Com- 

it  is  converted  by  the  clerk  to  his  own  missioners,  19  Kan.  394;  Harrison  v. 

use.     Sowle  v.  Holdridge,  25  Ind.  119.  Haas,  25  Ind.  281 ;  State  Railroad  Tax 

If  fraud  is  practiced  upon  the  defend-  Cases,  92  U.  S.  575,  616;  City  of  South 

ant  he  may  recover  the  money  which  Bend  v.  University  of  Notre  Dame,  69 

he  has  paid  into  court.     Cox  v.  Brain,  Ind.   344;     Conwell    v.    Claypool,    8 

3  Taunt.  95.  Blackf.  124;  Hewett  r.  Fenstamaker, 

'  Fall  V.  Hazelrigg,  45  Ind.  576,  S.  C.  128  Ind.  315 ;    Montgomery  v.  Trumh, 

15  Am.  Rep.  278;  Ruckle  v.  Barbour,  126  Ind.  331;    Jackson  v'.  Smith,  120 

48  Ind.  271 ;  Hunter  v.  Bales,  24  Ind.  Ind.  520,  524. 

299;  Lynch  r.  Jennings,  43  Ind.  276;  *  Freeson  r.  Bissell,  63  N.Y.  168; 

Board  v.  Henneberry,  41  111.  179 ;  Hay-  Bruce  v.  Tilson.  25  N.Y.  194 ;  St.  Paul, 

wardv.  Munger,  14  Iowa,  516;  "Whelan  etc.,  Co.  r.  Brown,  9  Minn.  157;  Mor- 


404 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  323 


mere  mistake  in  a  case  where  the  liability  is  not  clear  and  def- 
inite to  defeat  a  suit,  but  we  suppose  it  to  be  otherwise  where 
the  mistake  is  without  reason  or  excuse. 

§  323.  Waiver  of  tender. — A  tender  may  be  waived  either 
expressly  or  impliedly  by  conduct  or  words. ^  Thus,  if  the 
creditor  states  that  there  is  nothing  due  him  or  that  he  will  not 
accept  any  tender  that  may  be  made,  this  will  amount  to  a 
waiver. 2  So,  where  a  party  intentionally  absents  himself  for 
the  purpose  of  evading  a  tender  and  the  debtor  is  ready  and 
prepared  to  make  a  proper  tender,  but  can  not  do  so  on  account 
of  such  evasion,  an  actual  tender  will  be  excused.^  A  specific 
objection  made  at  the  time  of  the  tender  precludes  all  other 
known  objections  and  operates  as  a  waiver  of  defects  known  to 
the  creditor  at  the  time  and  not  objected  to  by  him.*  But  it 
has  been  held  that  a  waiver  can  not  be  established  by  requir- 
ing the  defendant  to  state  on  the  trial  whether  or  not  he  would 


ris  V.  Hoyt,  11  Mich.  9 ;  Seely  v.  How- 
ard, 13  Wis.  336;  Winton  y.  Sherman, 
20  Iowa,  295 ;  Hills  v.  New  York  Ex- 
change Bank,  105  U.  S.  319, 321 ;  Tacey 
V.  Irwin,  18  Wall.  549. 

>  Thorne  v.  Mosher,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  257 ; 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  9  N.  Y.  525;  Has- 
kell V.  Brewer,  11  Me.  258;  House  v. 
Alexander,  105Ind.l09.  The  general 
rule  is  that  if  a  party  by  his  words  or 
conduct  renders  it  evident  that  a  ten- 
der would  be  vain  or  fruitless  none 
need  be  made,  Chinn  v.  Bretches,  42 
Kan.  316,  S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  426;  Mc- 
Donald V.  Wolff,  40  Mo.  App.  302 ; 
Ware  v.  Berlin,  43  La.  Ann.  534,  S.  C. 
9  So.  R.  490;  Hall  v.  Norwalk  Ins. 
Co.,  57  Conn.  105,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  356; 
Soell  V.  Hadden,  85  Tex.  182,  19  S.  W. 
R.  1087. 

"  Lacy  V.  Wilson,  24  Mich.  479 ;  Ter- 
rell V.  Walker,  65  N.  Car.  91 ;  Brewer 
V.  Fleming,  51  Pa.  St.  102;  Hazard  v. 
Loring,  10  Cush.fMass.)  267;  Wesling 
V.  Noonan,  31  Miss.  599;  Bellinger  v. 


Kitts,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  273;  Mathis  v. 
Thomas,  101  Ind.  119;  Turners.  Parry, 
27  Ind.  163;  Root  v.  Johnson  (Ala.) 
10  So.  R.  293;  Odum  v.  Rutledge,  94 
Ala.  488,  10  So.  Rep.  222. 

^Sharp  V.  Todd,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  324; 
Noyes  v.  Clark,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.),  179, 
S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  620;  Southworth  v. 
Smith,  7  Cush.  (Mass.)  391;  Hall  w. 
Whittier,  10  R.  I.  530. 

*  Moynahan  v.  Moore,  9  Mich.  8,  S.C. 
77  Am.  Dec.  468,  and  note ;  Thayer  v. 
Meeker,  86  111.  470 ;  Platter  v.  Board, 
103  Ind.  360;  Houses.  Alexander,  105 
Ind.  109;  Adams  v.  Helm,  55  Mo. 
468;  Wheelan??.  Reilly,  61  Mo.  565; 
Jennings  v.  Mendenhall,  7  Ohio  St. 
257;  Gould  v.  Banks,  8  Wend.(N.  Y.) 
562,  S.  C.  24  Am.  Dec.  90;  Wood  v. 
Babb,  16  So.  Car.  427;  Walsh  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  Ass'n,  101  Mo.  534,  S.  C. 
14  S.  W.  R.  722;  Larsen  v.  Breene,  12 
Colo.  480,  21  Pac.  R.  498 ;  Cradle  v. 
AVarner,  140  111.  123,  29  N.  E.  R.  1118. 


§  324  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  405 

have  accepted  the  tender  if  it  had  been  made.'  To  establish 
an  effective  waiver  of  a  tender  it  must,  as  it  has  been  lield,  ap- 
pear that  there  was  capacity  to  perform.'^  Where,  however, 
there  is  a  direct  and  explicit  rej^udiation  of  the  contract  or  an 
unqualified  refusal  to  accept  a  tender,  in  order  to  show  that 
there  was  no  waiver  there  must,  as  we  believe,  be  affirmative 
evidence  showing  lack  of  capacity,  but  this  evidence  may,  of 
course,  come  from  the  party  who  claims  the  waiver  as  well  as 
from  his  adversary.  It  may,  indeed,  be  deduced  or  inferred 
from  the  circumstances  disclosed  by  the  evidence,  no  matter 
from  which  party  the  evidence  may  come. 

§  324.  Offer  to  perform. — Akin  to  the  tender  of  money  or 
goods  is  the  offer  to  perform  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  ."^  Thus, 
where  one  seeks  the  specific  performance  of  a  contract  he  must 
show  "that  he  has  done  or  offered  to  do,  or  is  then  ready  and 
willing  to  do,  all  the  essential  and  material  acts  required  of 
him  by  the  agreement."*  And  there  are  many  other  cases  in 
which  the  plaintiff  must  perform  or  offer  to  perform  all  the 
material  conditions  of  a  contract  on  his  part  before  he  can  re- 
cover under  the  contract. 

§  325.   Architect's  certificates — Engineer's  estimates. — In 

many  cases,  as  in  building  contracts,  and  in  contracts  for  the 
construction  of  public  works,  such  as  railroads,  highways, 
canals,  public  buildings  and  the  like,  a  condition  precedent  to 
the  right  of  recovery  is  the  certificate  of  an  architect  or  the  es- 
timate of  an  engineer.  The  certificate  or  estimate  must  be  se- 
cured before  action  is  commenced,  unless  some  valid  excuse  for 

'  Bluntzer  r.  Dewees,  79  Texas,  272,  said:     "A   tender  imports    not    only 

S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  29;  Tarbell  tj.  Farm-  readiness  and  ability  to  perform,  but 

er's,  etc.,  Co. ,44  Minn.  471,  S.  C.  47  actual  production  of  the  thing  to  be 

N.  W.  R.  152.  delivered.     The  formal  requisites  of  a 

*  Eddy  V.  Davis,  116  N.  Y.  247,  S.  C.  tender  may  be  waived,  but  to  estab- 
22  N.  E.  R.  362.     In  the  case  referred  lish  a  waiver  there  must  be  an  exist- 
to  the  court  cited  the  cases  of  Nelson  ing  ability  to  perform." 
V.  Plimpton  Elevating  Co.,  55  N.  Y.  ^2  AVharton  on  Contracts.  970. 
484;  Lawrence  r.  Miller,  86  N.Y.  131 ;  *3  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §  1407. 
Rigler  v.   Morgan,  77  N.  Y.  318,  and 


406 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  325 


not  securing  it  can  be  shown,  for  without  it  the  cause  of  action 
is  not  complete.^  The  safe  course  is  to  secure  a  written  certifi- 
cate or  estimate,  althougli  the  decisions  seem  to  authorize  the 
conclusion  that  a  written  certificate  is  not  necessary  unless  the 
contract  so  requires.^  It  is,  however,  held  that  there  must  be 
a  certificate  or  estimate,  and  that  a  mere  approval  of  the  ac- 
count will  not  be  sufficient."'^  Some  of  the  courts  hold  that  an 
action  will  lie  for  the  reasonable  value  of  work  and  materials, 
although  the  certificate  of  the  architect  or  engineer  has  not 
been  obtained,'*  but  this  seems  to  us  to  be  a  questionable  doc- 
trine, inasmuch  as  it  would  often  operate  to  deprive  parties  of 
the  benefit  of  the  judgment  of  men  skilled  in  a  particular  pro- 
fession and  thus  materially  affect  the  rights  of  the  parties  un- 
der their  contract.  An  architect  or  engineer  has  no  right  to 
arbitrarily  and  corruptly  refuse  a  certificate,  and  if  this  be 
shown  a  recovery  will  be  allowed.^     It  is  evident,  it  may  be 


^  United  States  v.  Robeson,  9  Peters, 
319 ;  Butler  v.  Tucker,  24  Wend.  447 ; 
Scott  V.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Giff.  216, 
S.  C.  27  L.  J.  Ch.  641 ;  De  Worms  v. 
Mellier,  L.  R.  16  Equ.  554 ;  Sharpe  v. 
San  Paulo,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Ch. 
597;  Packard  v.  Van  Schoick,  58 
111.  79;  Mills  v.  Weeks,  21  111. 
568;  Sweet  V.  Morrison,  116  N.  Y. 
19,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  276;  Coey  v. 
Lehman,  79  111.  173;  Downey  v. 
O'Donnell,  86  111.  49 ;  Walsh  v.  Walsh, 
11  Bradw.  (111.  App.)  199.  See,  gen- 
erally, Doyn  V.  Ebbesen,  72  Wis.  284, 
S.  C.  39  N.  W.  R.  535 ;  Cushman  v. 
Somers,  60  Vt.  613,  S.  C.  15  Atl.  R. 
315;  Sullivan  v.  Susong,  30  So.  Car. 
305,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  156;  Bailey  v. 
Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  30,  S.  C. 
19  N.  E.  R.  508.  In  Barney  v.  Giles, 
120  111.  1.54,  it  is  held  tluit  the  rule  is 
the  same  in  equity  as  at  law. 

"^  Roberts  v.  AVatkins,  14  C.  B.  N.  S. 
592.  But  in  view  of  the  questions  that 
may  arise  as  to  what  constitutes  a  cer- 
tificate or  estimate  and  of  the  doubt 
whether  modern  usage  does   not  re- 


quire that  certificates  and  estimates  be 
written  the  only  safe  course  is  to  have 
them  put  in  writing  in  all  cases. 

*  Morgan  v.  Birnie,  9  Bing.  672 ;  The 
Northern  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Parnell,  15 
C.  B.  630. 

*  Rude  V.  Mitchell,  97  Mo.  365,  cit- 
ing Neenan  v.  Donoghue,  50  Mo.  493; 
Dinsmore  v.  Livingston  County,  60 
Mo.  241 ;  Yeats  v.  Ballentine,  56  Mo. 
530. 

s  Bentley  v.  Davidson,  74  Wis.  420. 
In  the  case  cited  the  court  said :  "The 
plaintiff  failed  to  obtain  the  certificates 
of  the  architects  that  they  had  per- 
formed their  contract  or  of  the  value 
of  the  extra  work,  or  the  deduction 
which  should  be  made  from  their 
claim  on  account  of  the  change  of 
specifications.  The  contract  makes  the 
obtaining  of  such  certificates  a  condi- 
tion precedent  to  the  liability  of  the 
defendants.  The  cases  on  this  subject, 
many  of  them  decided  by  this  court, 
hold  this  a  valid  and  binding  agree- 
ment, and  that  the  builder  has  no  right 
of  action  under  such  contract  for  his 


§  325 


PUKCA  LTION  A  KY    ;STKPS. 


407 


well  to  say,  that  the  refusal  of  the  architect  will  materially  in- 
fluence the  theoiy  of  the  case  for  the  reason  that  it  will  require 
the  case  to  proceed  upon  a  different  ground  from  that  oi  the 
performance  of  a  condition  precedent.^  It  is  generally  held 
that  the  corrupt  or  culpably  wrongful  refusal  to  issue  the  proper 
certificate  will  not  defeat  the  plaintiff,  but  that  it  is  incumbent 
ufjon  him  to  clearly  show  inexcusable  wrong  on  the  part  of  the 
architect  or  fraudulent  conduct.''  Where  the  plaintiff  seeks  to 
excuse  the  failure  to  obtain  the  certificate  or  estimate  it  is  es- 
sential that  the  theory  of  the  case  be  so  framed  and  the  plead- 
ings so  drawn  as  to  make  the  excuse  available  as  by  providing 
for  evidence  of  fraud,  collusion,  mistake  or  the  like.  It  is 
quite  well  agreed  that  where  the  contract  does  not  make  the 
judgment  and  certificate  of  the  architect  or  engineer  conclusive, 
it  does  not  have  the  force  and  effect  of  an  award,  but  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  performance,^  so  that  in  such  cases  the  theory 


material  and  labor  until  he  obtains 
such  certilieates,  unless  they  are  with- 
held dishonestly  and  arbitrarily.  If 
so  withheld,  all  the  cases  agree  tluit 
he  may  recover  by  showing  the  fact, 
and  showing  that  he  has  performed 
the  contract  according  to  its  terms." 

'  :\lilner  v.  Field,  5  Exch.  829;  Bat- 
terbury  v.  Vyse,  2  H.  &  C.  42,  32  L.  J. 
Exch.  177;  Clarke  v.  Watson,  18  C.  B. 
N.  S.  278;  Macintosh  v.  Great  West- 
ern, etc.,  Co.,  2  Mac.  &  G.  74. 

'  Kihlberg  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S. 
398;  Sweeney  v.  United  States,  109  U. 
S.  618;  Martinsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
March,  114  U.  S.  549 ;  Perkins  v.  Giles, 
50  N.  Y.  228;  Byron  v.  Low,  ICON. 
Y.  291 ;  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania, etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  250 ;  Kirt- 
land  r.  Moore,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  lOfJ;  Clarke 
V.  Watson,  18  C.  B.  N.  S.  278;  Baasen 
V.  Baehr,  7  Wis.  510;  Hudson  v.  Mc- 
Cartney, 33  AVis.  331 ;  Forristal  v.  Mil- 
waukee, 57  Wis.  628 ;  Oakwood,  etc., 
Ass'n  V.  Rathborne,  65  Wis.  177;  Tetz 
V.  Butterfiel.l,  54  AVis.  242;  Bliss  v. 
Smith,  o4  Beav.  508;  Scott  v.  Liver- 


pool, etc.,  Co.,  3  De  G.  &  J.  334. 
Fraud  on  the  part  of  the  architect  vi- 
tiates his  certificate.  Phillips  r.  Fox- 
all,  L.  R.  Q.  B.  666.  So,  of  course, 
does  fraud  on  the  part  of  one  of  the 
parties.  Kimberley  v.  Dick,  L.  R.  13 
Eq.  1 ;  Foster  v.  Charles,  7  Bing.  105. 
See,  generally,  Stevenson  v.  Watson, 
L.  R.  4  C.  P.  D.  148;  Fowler  r.  Deak- 
man,  84  111.  130;  Badger  v.  Kerber,  61 
111.  328.  It  has  been  held  that  where 
the  owner  fails  to  comply  with  his 
contract  the  production  of  the  certifi- 
cate is  excused.  Hall  v.  Bennett  (N. 
Y.),16J.  &  S.302.  But  this  doctrine  is 
one  of  limited  application  and  can 
prevail  only  in  peculiar  cases. 

^Northampton,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Parnell, 
15  C.  B.  630,  S.  C.  24  L.  J.  C.  P.  60; 
Kirk  !'.  Bromly  Union,  2  Phill.  640; 
Hartupee  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  97 
Pa.  107;  McCoy  v.  Able,  131  Ind.  417, 
S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  528;  Van  Sickle  v. 
Belknap,  129  Ind.  558;  Linville  v. 
State,  130  Ind.  210,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 
1129. 


408  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  325 

must  be  so  constructed  as  to  treat  the  estimate  or  certificate  as 
showing  the  performance  of  a  condition  precedent  and  not  as 
dispensing  with  averments  of  performance  of  tlie  contract  on 
the  part  of  the  party  seeking  affirmative  relief.  There  is  a  sharp 
conflict  upon  the  question  whether  parties  can  in  advance  of  any 
controversy  completely  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  by 
binding  themselves  not  to  appeal  to  the  courts  but  to  abide  the 
decision  of  architects,  engineers  or  other  persons  selected  by 
them  to  decide  questions  that  may  arise  concerning  future 
transactions  or  acts.^  There  is  an  essential  difference,  as  we 
believe,  in  submitting  a  matter  to  arbitration  after  a  contro- 
versy has  arisen  and  the  parties  know  its  nature  and  extent 
and  providing  in  advance  of  any  dispute  for  a  conclusive  de- 
cision of  a  controversy  tliat  may  possibly  arise.  It  may  not 
be  amiss  to  remark  that  even  the  cases  which  carry  to  the  ut- 
most length  the  doctrine  of  the  conclusiveness  of  the  certificate 
of  an  architect  or  the  estimate  of  an  engineer  do  not  deny  that 
fraud  or  mistake  may  always  be  shown.  One  of  the  courts 
which  has  gone  to  a  great  length  (not  without  some  contra- 
diction of  its  own  decisions,  it  may  be  noted  by  the  way),  has 
held  that  it  may  be  shown  that  an  engineer  made  a  mistake  in 
a  matter  confided  by  the  contract  to  his  judgment. 

'  Kistler  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  Co.,  11  Gill.  &  J.  58;    Alton,  etc.,  Co. 

88Ind.  460;  Bauer  v.  Sampson  Lodge,  v.  Northcott,  15  111.  49;    M.  &  S.  R. 

102  Ind.  262,  269,  S.  C-  1  N.  E.  R.  571 ;  Co.  v.  Veeder,  17  Ohio,  385 ;  N.  L.  R. 

Supreme   Council,   etc.,   v.   Garrigus,  Co.  r.  McGrann,  33  Pa.  St.  530 ;  Bow- 

104  Ind.  133,  S.  C.  54  Am.  R.  298 ;  The  ery  Bank  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  63  N.  Y.  336 ; 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Donnegan  et  al.,  Thomas  v.  Fleury,  26  N.  Y.  26 ;  Butler 

111  Ind.  179,  S.  C.  12  N.  E.  R.  153;  v.  Tucker,   24  Wend.  447;    Smith  v, 

Dugan  V.  Thomas,  79  Me.  221,  S.  C.  Braggs,  3  Denio,  73;    Smith  v.  Brady, 

9  Atl.  R.  354;  Insurance  Co.  «.  Morse,  17  N.  Y.  173;  Corning  v.  Corning,  & 

20  Wall.  445 ;    Scott  v.  Avery,  5  H.  L.  N.  Y.  97 ;  Pharis  v.  Geer,  31  Hun,  443 ; 

Cases,  811 ;    Thompsons.  Charnock,  8  Schultz  v.  T.  N.  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  242; 

Term  R.  139;  Reed  v.  Insurance  Co.,  O'Reilly  t-.  Kerns,  52  Pa.  St.  214;  Van- 

138  Mass.  572;    Stephenson  v.  Pisca-  dervecker  u.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co., 

taqua,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Me.  55;  Starkey  v.  27  Vt.  130;  Ranger  v.  Great  Western, 

De  Graff,  22  Minn.  431 ;    McMahon  v.  etc.,  Co.,  5  H.  L.  Cases,  72;  Fudickar 

IS^ew  York,  etc.,  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  463,  467 ;  v.  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.,  62  N.  Y.  392 ; 

Van  Court]andt?;.Underhi]l,  17  Johns.  Kidwell   v.   Baltimore,    etc.,    Co.,    11 

405,  410, 420 ;  Wilson  v.  Y.  &  L.  M.  R'y  Gratt.  676. 


§  326  PRECAUTIONARY    STKPS.  409 

§  32G.  Taking:  possession — Completing  evidence  of  title  or 
right. — It  sometimes  oceurs  that,  in  order  to  make  a  eom- 
plete  cause  of  action,  the  chose  in  action  or  the  property 
should  he  taken  into  possession.  One  who  sues  for  the  vin- 
dication of  a  right  founded  upon  a  chose  in  action  or  upon  a 
claim  to  property  must  ordinarily  show  a  complete  title. ^  At 
common  law  an  assignee  of  many  demands  could  not  sue  at 
law,  but  it  is  now  almost  everywhere  different  because  made 
so  by  positive  statute.  But  even  where  an  assignee  may  sue 
the  ordinary  rule  is  that  he  must  have  possession  of  the  chose 
in  action  upon  which  he  founds  his  complaint  or  declaration. 
It  is  true  that  in  most  of  the  States  a  party  not  in  possession, 
may  take  steps  to  complete  his  right  to  the  demand  upon  which 
he  sues  by  proceeding  against  the  person  who  wrongfully  with- 
holds it  from  him  before  suing  the  debtor  or  promisor,  or  by 
making  him  a  party  where  the  statute  permits  that  course  to 
be  pursued.  The  title  which  must  rest  in  the  plaintiff  at  the 
time  he  begins  his  action  is  such  a  title  as  will  give  him  a 
right  to  recover.  The  theory  of  the  case  should  be  constructed 
tvith  this  rule  in  view  and  the  development  of  the  theory  be 
made  effective  by  competent  evidence  establishing  such  a  title. 
Where  the  plaintiff  sues  in  a  representative  capacity  it  is  nec- 
essary that  such  steps  be  taken  as  show  a  right  in  him  in  that 
capacity.  A  person  may  have  a  right  to  act  in  a  representa- 
tive capacit}^  and  yet  no  complete  cause  of  action.  This  is 
well  illustrated  by  the  cases  in  which  it  is  held  that  a  receiver 
can  not  sue  unless  invested  with  authority  to  prosecute  actions 
and  suits. ^     The  general  rule  is  that  a  suit  can  not  be  main- 

'  Stephens' Pleading,  304 ;  Carters.  Neuborough,  3  Bro.  C.  C.  88;    Green 

Carter,  82  Va.  624;    Republic  Iron  Co.  r.  AVinter,  1  Johns.  Ch.  60;  In  re  Mer- 

V.  Jones,  37  Fed.  R.  721;    Wright  v.  ritt,  5  Paige,  125;    Metritt  i\  Lyon,  16 

:McCainpbell,  75  Texas,  644,  S.  C.  13  Wend.  405,  410;    Reynolds  r.'Petty- 

S.W.  R.293;  Keyserr.  Renner,  87  Va.  John,  79  Va.  327;    Battle  r.  Davis,  66 

249,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  406;    Lemon  v.  N.  Car.  252;    Screven  v.  Clark,  48  Ga. 

Temple,  7  Ind.  556;    Rowell  i*.  Klein,  41 ;    Manlove  v.  Burger,  38  Ind.  211; 

44  Ind.  290;    Hill  i\  Shalter,  73  Ind.  Garver  r.    Kent,    70   Ind.   428.     See, 

459 ;  Richardson  v.  Snider,  72  Ind.  425.  generally,  Kehr  v.  Hall,  117  Ind.  405; 

*  Sawyer  r.  Harrison,  43  Minn.  297,  State  r.  Sullivan,  120  Ind.  197;  Catlin 

S.  C.  45  N.  W,  R.  434;  Wynn  v.  Lord  t'.    Wilcox,    123   Ind.   477;  Griesel   v. 


410 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


326 


tained  against  a  receiver  witliout  iirst  obtaining  leave  of  the 
court  that  appointed  him.^  In  suits  or  actions  by  the  assignees 
of  an  insolvent  debtor  it  is  often  necessary  to  take  steps  to  fully 
complete  the  right  to  sue  by  perfecting  the  title  to  property  by 
causing  the  deed  of  assignment  or  the  like  to  be  recorded  as  the 
statute  requires. 2  In  some  jurisdictions  it  is  necessary  for  the 
assignee,  in  order  to  complete  his  right  or  title,  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  property  assigned.^  We  have  gone  into  the  spe- 
cific subject  as  far  as  it  is  necessary  since  we  have  shown  that 
in  many  cases  subsidiary  facts  must  be  brought  into  existence 
by  the  advocate  by  securing  the  performance  of  acts  essential 
to  a  complete  cause  of  action,  but  we  have  barely  touched  upon 
the  general  subject,  believing  that  such  hints  as  we  have  given 
will  be  sufficient  to  remind  the  advocate  of  the  necessity  of 
taking  the  proper  precautionary  measures. 


Schmal,  55  Ind.  475;  Keen  v.  Breck- 
enridge,  96  Ind.  69.  There  is  a  con- 
flict of  opinion  as  to  whether  a  re- 
ceiver may  sue  in  the  court  which  ap- 
pointed him  witliout  an  order  author- 
izing it.  Afiirming  that  he  can,  Till- 
inghast  r.  ChampUn,  4  R.  I.  173. 
Contra,  Wilkinson  v.  Rutherford,  49 
>'.  J.  L.  241,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  507 ;  Glenn 
V.  Dodge  (Dist.  of  Col.),  3  Cent.  R. 
283,  285.  It  has  been  held  that  the 
rule  denying  the  receiver  a  right  to 
sue  in  cases  where  he  is  not  author- 
ized to  bring  suits  by  the  court  that 
appointed  him  does  not  apply  to  cases 
where  the  suit  is  upon  a  contract  made 
with  him  in  his  representative  capac- 
ity. Pouder  v.  Catterson,  127  Ind.  434, 
S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  66. 

^  Wiswell  V.  Sampson,  14  How.  (U. 
S.)  52;  Express  Co.  ■??.  Railroad  Co., 
99  U.  S.  191,  198;  Davis  v.  Gray,  16 
Wall.  203,  218 ;  Barton  v.  Barbour,  104 
U.  S.  126 ;  Reed  v.  Axtell,  84  Va.  231 ; 
Jones  V.  Brouse,  32  W.  Va.  444,  S.  C. 
9  S.  E.  R.  873;  Thompson  v.  Scott,  4 
Dill,  508;    Kennedy  v.  Indianapolis, 


etc.,  Co.,  3  Fed.  R.  97;  Little  v.  Du- 
senberry,  46  N.  J.  L.  614,  S.  C.SOAm. 
R.  445 ;  De  Graffenried  v.  Brunswick, 
etc.,  Co.,  57  Ga.  22;  Keen  v.  Brecken- 
ridge,  96  Ind.  69;  Meredith  Savings 
Bank-y.  Simpson,  22  Kan.  414;  Melen- 
dy  V.  Barbour,  78  Va.  544 ;  Payne  v. 
Baxter,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  517 ;  Hills  v.  Par- 
ker, 111  Mass.  508;  Heath  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  Co.,  83  Mo.  617,  623.  In  the  case 
of  Kortjohn  v.  Seimers,  29  Mo.  App. 
271,  it  was  held  that  an  answer  in  the 
nature  of  a  cross-bill  can  not  be  filed 
against  a  receiver  unless  leave  is  first 
obtained.  The  decision  in  Brown  v. 
Ranch,  1  Wash.  498,  S.  C.  20  Pac.  R. 
785,  carries  the  general  doctrine  very 
far, — too  far  as  it  seems  to  us, — for  it 
is  that  leave  to  sue  is  a  jurisdictional 
fact  which  may  be  raised  at  any  stage 
of  the  proceedings. 

2  Wheeler  v.  Hawkins,  101  Ind.  486; 
Foster  v.  Brown,  65  Ind.  234. 

^  Hudson  V.  Maze,  3  Scam.  578;  Ball 
V.  Loomis,  29  N.  Y.  412;  Smith  v. 
Leavitts,  2  Ala.  175 ;  Connah  v.  Sedg- 
wick, 1  Barb.  10. 


§327 


PKECAUTIOXAKY    STEPS . 


411 


§  327.  Notice. — There  are  cases  in  which  a  notice  constitutes 
one  of  the  minor  facts  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  complete 
cause  of  action.  In  some  cases  a  guarantor  is  entitled  to  notice 
of  the  default  of  the  pi-incipul.^  Notice  to  a  municipal  corpo- 
ration of  a  defect  in  a  street,  caused  by  tlie  act  of  a  wrong-doer, 
may  be  required  to  fix  a  right  of  recovery.'^  In  the  important 
class  of  cases  involving  the  rights  of  landlord  and  tenant,  no- 
tice is  often  an  indispensable  fact.^  In  this  class  of  cases  the 
notice  should  be  in  writing  and  in  })roper  form.^  It  must  be 
given  by  the  proper  person  to  the  person  entitled  to  receive  it.^ 
It  must  be  given  at  the  proper  time,  and  its  service  must  be 
such  as  the  law  requires*^.  It  is  often  the  duty  of  the  lawyer 
to  advise  his  client  to  give  notice  in  order  to  secure  for  him 
rights  in  a  future  action  that  he  has  reason  to  expect  will  be 
instituted.  Thus,  it  is  expedient  for  the  counsel  of  a  municipal 
corporation  to  give  notice  of  the  action  brought  against  it  for 
injuries  caused  by  an  obstruction  in  a  street  to  the  person  who 


'  Russell  r. Clark,  7  Cranch,  69;  Con- 
ner v.  Iligginson,  1  Mason,  323;  Allen 
V.  Pike,  3  Cush.  238.  So,  notice  of  the 
dishonor  of  a  bill  or  note  is  generally 
necessary  in  order  to  hold  the  drawer 
or  indorser.  Disborough  v.  Vanness, 
3  Halstead  (N.  J.  L.),  231;  Treadway 
V.  Nicks,  3  McCord  (So.  Car.),  195; 
Musson  V.  Lake,  4  How.  (U.  S.)  262; 
Ogden  V.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 
213;  Webber  r.  Matthews,  101  Mass. 
481 ;  Tiedenian  on  Commercial  Paper, 
§§  234,  236. 

^  Requa  v.  City,  45  N.  Y.  129 ;  Bas- 
sett  V.  City,  53  Mo.  290;  S.  C.  14  Am. 
R.  446 ;  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets, 
475. 

'Taylor  on  Landlord  and  Tenant, 
§  466;  King  v.  jConnolly,  44  Cal.  236. 

^  Johnston  v.  Iludlestone,  4  B.  it  C. 
f)22.  But,  as  a  general  rule,  no  par- 
ticular form  is  required.  Doj'le  v. 
Teas,  5  111.  202;  Tillinghast  r.  Champ- 
lin,  4  R.  I.  173,  S.  C.  67  Am.  Dec.  510. 

^  Com  stock  v.Cavanach,  17  R.  I.  233, 


S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.498;  Connell  v.  Cham- 
bers, 22  Neb.  302,  S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R. 
636;  Thomas  V.  Black  (Del.),  18  Atl. 
R.  771 ;  Rosenblat  v.  Perkins,  18  Ore. 
156,  S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  598;  Johnson  v. 
Donaldson,  17  R.  I.  107,  S.  C.  20  Atl. 
R.242;  Williams?;.  Shelden,  61  Mich. 
311.  See,  generally,  Beiler  v.  Dovoll, 
40  Mo.  App.  251 ;  Hunter  v.  Frost,  47 
Minn.  1,  S.  C.49  N.W.  R.  327;  Swope 
V.  Hopkins,  119  Ind.  125,  S.  C.  21  N. 
E.  R.  462;  Freeman  y. Wilson,  16  R.  I. 
524,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  921 ;  Adams  r.  Co- 
hoes,  53  Hun,  260;  Drey  v.  Doyle,  28 
Mo.  App.  249;  Scott  v.  Willis,  122  Ind. 
1.  Where  the  title  of  the  landlord  is 
denied  no  notice  to  quit  is  necessary. 
Bodwell  Granite  Co.  v.  Lane,  83  Me. 
168.  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  829;  Amrick  v. 
Brubaker,  101  Mo.  473,  S.  C.  14  8.  W. 
R.  627;  Appleton  v.  Ames.  150  Mass. 
34,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  69;  Wa.le  on  No- 
tice, §§  615-626;  Taylor  on  Landlord 
and  Tenant,  §481. 
•^  Jones  V.  Marsh,   4   Term  R.  464; 


412 


THi:    WOKK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  327 


placed  it  there. ^  Substantial  benefit  may  be  secured  by  a. 
grantee  who  holds  under  a  deed  with  covenants  of  warranty  by 
giving  notice  to  his  grantor  of  an  action  brought  to  evict  him 
from  the  land.^  Where  there  is  no  statute  prescribing  a  form 
of  notice,  it  is,  in  general,  sufficient  if  the  notice  is  fairly  and 
reasonably  specific,  but  where  there  is  a  statute  prescribing  the 
form  of  the  notice  the  essential  requirements  of  the  statute 
must  be  obeyed.^  In  cases  where  a  party  has  assumed  an  ob- 
ligation which  continues  in  force  until  revoked  it  is  often  neces- 
sary  in  order  to  complete  the  cause  of  defense  to  give  notice  of  re- 
vocation.* ^A^here  a  party  is  given  an  option  to  make  or  declare 
an  entire  debt  due  upon  a  partial  default  notice  is  often  requi- 
site to  an  effective  exercise  of  the  right.  There  is,  however, 
conflict  in  the  authorities  as  to  whether  notice  is  necessary  in 
cases  where  the  contract  does  not  expressly  or  impliedly  pro- 
vide for  notice  of  the  election  to  declare  to  treat  the  entire  debt 
as  due,  many  of  the  courts  holding  that  the  bringing  of  the 
suit  is  sufficient  notice  of  an  election  by  the  creditor.^     There 


Walker  v.  Sharpe,  103  Mass.  154;  1 
Chitty  Gen.  Prac.,  483. 

» Westfield  v.  Mayo,  122  Mass.  100. 
See,  generally,  as  to  notice  as  essen- 
tial to  a  cause  of  action  or  defense, 
Heimann  u.AVestern  Union  Tel.  Co.,  57 
Wis.  562;  Young  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  163;  Cole  v.  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.,  33  Minn.  227; 
Wolf  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  62 
Pa.  St.  83;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
McKinny,  2  Texas  Ct.  of  App.  Civil 
Cases,  644. 

'^Morgan  v.  Muldoon,  82  Ind.  347; 
Miner  v.  Clark,  15  Wend.  425. 

3  Allen  V.  Strickland,  100  N.  Car.  225, 
S.  C.  6S.  E.  R.  780;  Bollinger  v.  Man- 
ning, 79  Cal.  7,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  375. 

*  Tischler  v.  Hofheimer,  83  Va.  35, 
S.  C.  4  S.  E.  R.  370 ;  Offord  v.  Davies, 
12  C.  B.  N.  S.  748;  Grant  v.  Camp- 
bell, 6  Dow,  239. 

5  Harper  v.  Ely,  56  111.  179 ;  Johnson 


V.  Van  Velsor,  43  Mich.  208;  English 
V.  Carney,  25  Mich.  178;  Lowenstein 
V.  Phelan,  17  Neb.  429;  Hoodless  v. 
Reid,  112  111.  105;  Heath  v.  Hall,  60 
111.344;  Morgan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Texas, 
etc.,  Co.,  137  U.  S.  171;  Buchanan  v. 
Berkshire  Life  Ins.  Co.,  96  Ind.  510. 
Contra,  Basse  v.  Gallegger,  7  Wis.  442 ; 
Marine  Bank  v.  International  Bank, 
9  Wis.  57.  See  Redman  v.  Purrington, 
65  Cal.  271;  Dean  v.  Applegarth,  65 
Cal.  391 ;  Leonard  v.  Tyler,  60  Cal.  299 ; 
Swett  V.  Stark,  31  Fed.  R.  858 ;  Wilson 
V.  Winter,  6  Fed.  R.  16;  Bosseel  v. 
Jarvis,  15  Wis.  571;  Monroe  v.  Fohl, 
72  Cal.  568,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.514;  Dean 
V.  Ridgeway,  82  Iowa,  757,  S.  C.  48  N. 
W.  R.  923;  Meier  v.  Meier,  105  Mo. 
411,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  223;  Hewett  w. 
Dean,  91  Cal.  5,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  423; 
Campbell  v.  West,  86  Cal.  197,  S.  C.  24 
Pac.  R.  1000. 


^328 


PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS. 


413 


a,re  cases  under  the  law  governing  contracts  of  guaranty  in 
which  notice  of  acceptance  or  of  default  is  essential  to  a  com- 
plete right  of  action,^  but  a  notice  is  not  essential,  by  any 
means,  in  all  cases  of  guaranty.''^  In  many  jurisdictions  a 
surety  may  secure  important  rights  by  giving  the  creditor  no- 
tice to  sue,  and  it  is  generally  held  that  to  obtain  the  benefit 
of  the  statute  the  notice  must  contain  positive  directions  to 
sue.-^ 


§  328.  Notice  for  inspection  of  documents. — Notices  are  of- 
ten required  in  order  to  prepare  for  trial  by  securing  an  in- 
spection of  documents  in  the  hands  of  the  adverse  party.  In 
order  to  secure  this  right  the  course  prescribed  by  law  must  be 
carefully  pursued.*  It  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that,  "If  a  case 
can  not  be  made  out  by  legal  evidence  it  can  not  be  made  out 
at  all."^  It  must  be  kept  in  mind,  too,  that  courts  will  receive 
only  the  best  evidence,  unless  a  foundation  has  been  properly 
laid  for  the  introduction  of  secondary  evidence.     The  efforts 


'  Kuffner  v.  Love,  33  111.  App.  601; 
Edmondston  v.  Drake,  5  Peters,  624 ; 
Adams  v.  Jones,  12  Peters,  207 ;  Law- 
ton  V.  Maner,  9  Rich.  (So.  Car.)  335; 
Sollee  V.  Meugy,  1  Bailey  Law  (So. 
Car.),  620;  Claflin  v.  Briant,  58  Ga. 
414;  Taylor  v.  MeClung,  2  Houston 
(Del.),  24 ;  Kellogg  r.  Stockton,  29  Pa. 
St.  460 ;  Menard  v.  Scudder,  7  La.  Ann. 
385;  Cooke  v.  Orne,  37  111.  186;  Mus- 
sey  V.  Rayner,  22  Pick.  223;  Peck  r. 
Barney,  13  Vt.  93 ;  Milroy  v.  Quinn,  69 
Ind.  406;  Taylor  v.  Shouse,  73  Mo. 
361 ;  Beakes  v.  Du  Cunha,  126  N.  Y. 
293 ;  Ilasselman  r.  Japanese,  etc.,  Co., 
2  Ind.  App.  ISO,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  718. 
As  to  requisites  and  form  of  notice,  see 
Powell  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  22  111. 
App.  409. 

*  Fisk  V.  Stone,  6  Dak.  35 ;  Obermann 
Brewing  Co.  r.  Ohlerking,  33  111.  App. 
26;  Wright  r.  Griffith,  121  Ind.  478, 
S.  C.  6  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  639;  Dover 
Stamping  Co.  v.  Noyes,  151  Mass.  342, 


S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  53;  Mathews  v. 
Phelp,  61  Mich.  327,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St. 
R.  581 ;  Loomis  Institute  v.  Hurd,  57 
Conn.  435,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  669;  Car- 
roll County  Savings  Bank  v.  Strother, 
28  So.  Car.  504,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  313; 
Nading  r.  McGregor,  121  Ind.  465,  S. 
C.  6  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  686;  Hess  v. 
Powell,  29  Mo.  App.  411 ;  Klosterman 
V.  Olcott,  25  Neb.  382,  S.  C.  41  N.  W. 
R.  251;  Hungerford  r.  O'Brien,  37 
Minn.  306,  S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  161. 

^Barnes  v.  Mowry,  129  Ind.  568; 
Harris  r.  Newell,  42  Wis.  687;  Kauf- 
man r.  Wilson,  29  Ind.  504;  Rice  r. 
Simpson.  9  Heisk.  809;  Baker  r.  Kel- 
logg, 29  Ohio  St.  663;  Bates  v.  State 
Bank,  2  Eng.  (Ark.)  394;  Savage  v. 
Carleton,  33  Ala.  443;  Bethune  v.  Do- 
zier,  10  Ga.  235;  Harriman  r.  Egbert, 
36  Iowa,  270 ;  Christy  r.  Home.  24  Mo. 
242;  Lnwson  v.  Buckley.  49  Hun,  329. 

^3  Chitty  Gen.  Pr.,  4.34. 

^Pulling  on  Attorneys,  191. 


414  Till-:    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  329 

of  counsel  should,  therefore,  always  be  directed  to  obtaining 
the  best  evidence  that  the  case  in  its  nature  affords;  and,  as 
all  written  instruments  speak  for  themselves,  they  constitute 
the  best  evidence.  When  these  documents  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  adverse  party,  notice  to  produce  them  must  be  given  in 
order  to  let  in  secondary  evidence.^  The  notice  must  be  framed 
with  care,  and  should  inform  the  party  to  whom  it  is  addressed 
as  to  what  is  required,  and,  for  this  reason,  the  document 
should  be  accurately  described. ^  If  the  documents  are  in  the 
possession  of  a  third  person  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  should  be 
seasonably  issued.  If  the  documents  are  lost,  then  proof  of  a 
diligent  and  an  unsuccessful  search  in  the  proper  place  must 
be  made  in  order  to  open  the  way  for  the  introduction  of  sec- 
ondary evidence.'^ 

§  329.   Effect  of  neglectino:  to  take  precautionary  measures. 

— The  matters  referred  to  are  plain  enough  when  mentioned,  but 
they  can  not  be  overlooked  without  involving  the  lawyer  and  his 
client  in  difficulties  that  £an  not  be  surmounted.  A  neglect 
in  performing  the  duty  of  ascertaining  the  facts,  and  the  evi- 
dence by  which  they  may  be  legally  proved,  will  subject  the 
advocate,  not  only  to  severe  censure,  but  may  cost  him  dam- 
ages. It  has  more  than  once  happened  that  words  of  stinging 
rebuke  have  fallen  from  great  judges  upon  attorneys  who  have 
failed  in  their  duty.*  But  it  is  not  the  fear  of  censure  or  of 
pecuniary  loss  that  should  influence  the  advocate;  he  should 
be  moved  by  far  higher  motives  to  do  his  duty. 

§330.  Arrangements  for  trial  —  Depositions.  —  Arrange- 
ments for  trial  involve  the  performance  of  various  duties. 
These  duties  need  not  be  performed  by  the  advocate  himself, 

1  Grimes  v.  Fall,  15Cal.  63;  Ander-  'Kearney  v.  The  Mayor,  92  N.  Y. 
son  Bridge  Co.  v.  Applegute,  13  Ind.  617;  Simpson  v.  Dall,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
339 ;  Whitman  v.  Weller,  39  Ind.  515 ;  460,  475 ;  Anglo-Am.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Can- 
Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Lonergan,  21  non,  31  Fed.  R.  313;  Thompson  v. 
Mo.  46 ;  Potier  v.  Barclay,  15  Ala.  439 ;  Thompson,  9  Ind.  323. 
United  States  v.  Winchester,  2  Mc-  *Thwaites  v.  Mackerson,  3  C.  &  P. 
Lean  (U.  S.),  135.  341 ;  2  Chitty  Gen.  Pr.,  22,  note. 

^3  Chitty  Gen.  Pr.,  834;   Ex  parte 
Jaynes,  70  Cal.  638. 


§  331  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS,  415 

but  it  is  his  fluty  to  direct  and  control  their  performance.  The 
time  for  trial  must  be  fixed  so  that  reasonable  notice  can  be 
given  parties  and  witnesses.  If  the  personal  attendance  of 
witnesses  can  not  be  enforced  by  the  process  of  the  court, 
depositions  must  be  taken,  and  notices  to  take  them  must  be 
prepared  and  served  as  tlie  law  requires.  The  advocate  should 
see  to  it  that  the  proper  method  of  examination  is  pursued  in 
taking  the  testimony  of  the  absent  witnesses,  and  he  can  not 
safely  intrust  the  examination  to  a  strange  and  uninstructed 
counsel.  It  is  often  necessary  to  examine  in  advance  deposi- 
tions taken  by  the  adverse  party,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing whether  there  are  valid  objections  to  them,  and  it  is  always 
prudent  to  examine  them  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  informa- 
tion of  the  adversary's  line  of  action.  If,  from  any  cause, 
there  is  reason  to  fear  that  the  testimony  of  a  witness  may  be 
lost,  his  deposition,  de  bene  esse,  should  be  promptly  secured. 

§  331.  Witnesses  and  subpoenas. — Directions  to  issue  sub- 
poenas for  witnesses  should  be  given  in  time  to  secure  due  serv- 
ice. There  is  one  safe  rule  on  this  point,  and  that  is,  give 
the  directions  in  writing  in  every  instance.  Issue  subpoenas 
in  every  case,  and  do  not  trust  to  the  oral  promises  of  witnesses 
that  they  will  be  in  attendance.  Provide  the  means  of  com- 
pelling attendance  by  causing  proper  process  to  be  served,  and 
the  tender  of  fees  to  be  made  in  cases  where  it  is  required. 
Where  documents  or  papers  in  the  hands  of  a  witness  are 
needed,  it  is  well  to  be  sure  that  the  subpoena  fairly  describes 
them.  Write  in  full  the  names  and  residences  of  witnesses. 
Ascertain  at  the  very  earliest  practicable  moment  what  wit- 
nesses the  adverse  party  will  call,  and  obtain  a  knowledge  of 
their  business,  their  reputation  and  their  character.  If  their 
reputation  is  vulnerable,  prepare  to  assail  it  by  witnesses;  but, 
although  this  advice  is  somewhat  aside  from  the  present  topic, 
keep  in  mind  this  one  thing:  Do  not  make  an  assault  upon  the 
reputation  of  any  witness  unless  it  is  deserved,  and  your  as- 
sault is  strong  enough  to  make  a  decided  impression. 


416  THE  ^yoRK  out  of  court.  §  332 

§  332.    Aseertainino:   particulars  of  adversary's   claim. — 

There  are  very  few  cases  in  which  it  is  not  important  to  ascer- 
tain the  particulars  of  the  claim  against  which  tlie  advocate  is 
required  to  defend.^  Whether  the  claim  is  asserted  by  com- 
plaint or  declaration,  or  by  way  of  answer  or  counter-claim,  it 
can  be  encountered  with  better  hope  of  success  if  the  particu- 
lars of  it  are  known.  A  pleading  dealing  only  in  general 
terms  may  contain  hidden  places  that,  like  the  thickets  of  the 
forest,  may  serve  as  places  of  ambush.  Where  there  is  doubt 
or  uncertainty  the  safe  course  is  to  clear  the  way  by  compell- 
ing, whenever  it  can  be  done,  a  display  of  all  the  particulars 
of  the  claim.  This  brings  them  into  full  view,  and  the  con- 
test is  waged  against  a  known  force  upon  an  open  plain,  and 
not  in  places  where  ambushes  may  be  laid  and  new  forcer? 
called  into  action.  A  fabricated  claim  will  not  often  stand  the 
test  of  specification.  It  is  a  sort  of  dissection  that  clears  away 
the  coloring  and  reveals  the  rottenness  of  the  skeleton.  If  the 
.statements  of  an  adversary's  pleading  are  vague  and  uncertain, 
the  true  course  is  to  move  to  make  them  certain  and  specific. 
If  the  claim  is  one  which  can  be  particularized  there  should 
be  a  demand  for  a  bill  of  particulars. 

§  333.  Setting  forth  particulars  of  claim. — In  setting  forth 
the  particulars  of  a  claim  it  is  impolitic  to  place  too  great  a 
value  upon  the  items.  Cases  have  been  laughed  out  of  court 
by  claims  so  large  as  to  seem  ridiculous.  A  fair  and  just  esti- 
miate  of  the  value  of  each  item  gives  an  honest  appearance  to 
the  claim;  while  an  extravagant  estimate  gives  it  an  appear- 
ance of  a  fraudulent  fabrication.  Of  course,  the  value  may 
somewhat  exceed  the  amount  likely  to  be  proved,  but  the  ex- 
cess should  not  be  very  great.  An  honest  claim,  based  on 
substantial  facts,  is  not,  as  the  jury  will  quickly  see,  likely  to 
be  an  extravagant  one.  If  the  evidence  falls  far  short  of  prov- 
ing the  amount  claimed  the  jury  will  not  be  slow  to  conclude 
that  the  client  who  asks  the  enforcement  of  an  exaggerated 
claim  is,  if  not  positively  dishonest,  so  unscrupulous  as  to  be 

^  "All  liglit   i.s  valuable  on  a  dark  path."     De  Quincey. 


§  334  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  417 

entitled  to  scant  favor.  An  exaggerated  claim  arouses  a  feel- 
ing of  distrust  that  needs  but  a  little  thing  to  enlarge  it  into  a 
feeling  of  resentment. 

§  334.  Filial  consultation  ^vith  client. — When  the  time  for 
trial  is  close  at  hand  listen  again  to  your  client's  story.  Listen 
with  patience,  that  no  fact  may  escape  you.  Quintilian  truly 
says:  "There  is  not  so  much  inconvenience  in  listening  to 
superfluous  matters  as  to  be  ignorant  of  such  things  as  are 
necessary."^  Patience  was  esteemed  by  the  ancients  as  a  nec- 
essary quality  in  an  advocate.  "And,  indeed,"  as  the  French 
advocates  teach,  "why  should  not  a  person  who  sees  his  fortune 
or  his  honor  in  peril  have  a  right  to  be  heard  in  detail,  so  that 
nothing  may  be  forgotten  in  the  instructions?"'-  The  veteran 
English  attorney,  Joseph  Chitty,  viewing  the  question  with 
less  of  sentiment  and  more  of  cold  business  sagacity  than  the 
French  and  Roman  advocates,  insists,  with  almost  equal  ear- 
nestness, upon  a  consultation  with  the  client  when  the  time 
for  trial  closely  approaches.  This  final  consultation  will,  if 
the  advocate  is  mindful  of  his  duty,  do  more  than  refresh  his 
memory.  It  will  quicken  his  interest  in  his  client's  cause, 
and  arouse  his  mental  powers.  If  he  be  of  the  stuff  of  which 
great  advocates  are  made,  the  near  approach  of  the  conflict  will 
put  a  spirit  into  him  that  will  give  him  strength  to  quit  him- 
self as  a  man,  if  it  does  not  insure  success.  If,  with  the  battle 
not  "afar  off,"  he  hears  his  client's  story  coldly  and  with  in- 
difference, he  is  not  well  equipped  for  the  encounter.  Doubt- 
less, the  keen  thrusts  of  the  conflict  will  excite  him  to  deter- 
mined action,  but,  nevertheless,  he  will  not  be  so  strong  as  he 

'  Quintilian  Inst.,  Book  XII.,  Chap.  "The  cUeut  I  look  upon  as  a  sick  man, 

viii.     "He  not  only  hears  but  exam-  distempered,  passionate,  willful,  and 

ines  his  client  andpinchecks  the  cause  extremely  in  love  with  his  own  cause 

where  he  fears  it  is  foundered."    Bish-  whatever  it  be,  and  many  times  the 

op  Collyer.     In  all  consultations  with  best  advice  to  a  resolute  client  is  but 

the  client  allowance  is  to  bo  made  for  as  a  good  lesson  to  a  lute  out  of  tune — ■ 

the  influence  of  passions  or  of  self  in-  the  affections  pre-engaged  draw  away 

terest  upon  his  judgment.     Said  the  the  judgment." 

Puritan  Solicitor.Geueral  John  Cooke,  *  History  of  the  French  Bar,  160.      . 
27 


418  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  335 

would  be  if  he  had  with  zeal  and  spirit  taken  up  arms  for  his 
client  before  the  contest  opened. 

§  335.  Notes  of  evidence. — It  is  while  the  mind  is  warmed 
with  the  client's  story,  and  stirred  by  the  thought  of  the  con- 
test so  soon  to  be  fought  in  the  forum,  that  the  notes  needed 
for  the  conduct  of  the  trial  should  be  put  on  paper.  "There 
is,"  says  M.  Bautain,  speaking  of  a  kindred  subject,  ''always 
life  in  this  first  rush,  and  care  should  be  taken  not  to  check 
its  impetus  or  cool  its  ardor.  "^  It  is  neither  necessary  nor 
expedient,  however,  to  put  down  in  full  all  the  facts,  much 
less  the  evidence;  that  work  ought  to  be  done  at  an  earlier 
stage  of  the  case.  What  is  needed  for  use  in  the  course  of  the 
trial  is  a  collection  of  hints  or  suggestions.  Too  much  com- 
mitted to  writing  will  do  harm.  No  man  can  go  through  a 
contest  where  every  step  must  be  watched  with  vigilance,  every 
advantage  seized  and  every  danger  guarded,  with  credit  to 
himself  or  justice  to  his  client,  if  he  follows  the  written  pages 
previously  prepared.  One  who  is  embarrassed  by  his  notes 
can  not  thrust  or  parry  like  one  whose  mind  is  bent  upon  the 
movements  of  the  contest.  The  paper  needed  for  the  purpose 
of  conducting  the  trial  is  a  mere  skeleton.  It  is  what  M.  Bau- 
tain calls  "a  dry  bone  frame."  Each  sentence  must  have  a 
meaning,  and  must  convey  it  quick  as  the  flash  of  thought  to 
its  author.  He  must  know  without  conscious  effort  what  each 
proposition  means.  He  must  be  able  to  determine  the  length 
and  breadth  of  every  statement  even  more  rapidly  and  uner- 
ringly than  the  mind  determines  the  size  and  distance  of  ob- 
jects perceived  by  the  eyes.  The  effort  expended  in  catching 
the  import  of  words  contained  in  the  skeleton  of  a  brief  is  lost 
to  the  actual  work  of  the  contest. 

§  336.  Trial  briefs. — It  will  not  do  to  take  as  models  for  the 
purpose  of  which  we  are  speaking  the  briefs  of  English  attor- 
neys prepared  for  English  barristers.  It  is  wise  to  prepare 
such  a  brief  after  the  preliminary  examination,  and  in  the 

'  Art  of  Extempore  Speaking,  197. 


§  337  PKECAUTIONAKY    STKPS.  419 

preparation  of  such  briefs  tlie  English  iiutliors  are  excellent 
instructors.  Much  valuable  advice  is  given  by  Mr.  Chitty  and 
Mr.  Warren  which  the  tyro  can  study  with  profit  and  the  ex- 
perienced advocate  recur  to  with  benefit.'  But  the  brief  pre- 
pared immediately  after  the  preliminary  examination  should 
be  laid  aside  when  the  trial  opens.  The  brief  needed  for  the 
trial,  as  compared  to  such  as  goes  into  tlie  hands  of  the  bar- 
risters, is  as  a  fleshless  skeleton  to  a  body  clothed  in  full 
flesh.  The  skeleton  brief  should  contain  th^  name  of  each 
witness,  with  a  statement  annexed  to  it  suggesting  in  the  short- 
est possible  way  the  subject  on  which  he  will  give  testimony, 
and  a  statement,  as  short  as  it  can  be  made  and  yet  be  intelligi- 
ble, of  the  leading  points  of  the  case.  It  should  be  a  condensa- 
tion of  the  first  brief,  trimming  it  down  to  the  very  bones. 

§  337.  Development  of  the  theory. — The  trial  is  the  develop- 
ment of  the  theory.  The  facts  should  move  before  the  jury  in 
an  orderly  and  an  unbroken  procession;  not  in  a  crowded  and 
straggling  mass.  The  line  of  movement  should  be  such  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  facts  follow  facts  and  inferences  emerge 
from  inferences  as  if  they  were  the  natural  sequence  of  what 
had  gone  before.  Naturalness  is  secured  by  the  art  of  the  ad- 
vocate in  making  each  step  follow  in  succession  as  the  steps 
follow  in  the  processes  of  nature.  The  work  of  the  advocate 
resembles  that  of  the  artist  who  puts  on  canvas  the  pictures 
of  a  panorama.  The  canvas  as  it  is  unrolled  exhibits  the  pic- 
tures which  dwelt  in  the  brain  of  the  painter  before  his  brush 
gave  them  visible  form;  so  the  theory  of  the  advocate,  as  it  is 
unfolded  before  the  jury,  gives  visible  form  to  the  preconceived 
images  of  his  brain.  Their  work  is  not  unlike,  differing  chiefly 
in  this:  The  painter's  brush  places  his  images  before  the 
physical  vision,  the  advocate's  work  places  them  before  the 
mental  vision.  Thus  differing,  they  closely  resemble  in  this: 
A  deviation  from  naturalness  blemishes  and  disfigures  the 
work  of  both.     The  closer  the  line  of  natural  movement  can 

'3  Chitty's  Gen.  Pr.,  847;  Warren's  Duties  of  .\ttorneys,  178. 


420  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  338 

be  followed,  the  stronger  the  presentation  of  the  ease.  What 
enables  the  advocate  to  keep  to  this  line  is  of  benefit;  what 
carries  him  from  it  is  hurtful.  If  the  written  guide  prepared 
for  the  trial  is  overloaded  with  particulars,  branching  from 
the  main  line  into  by-ways,  it  will  do  harm.  If,  however,  it 
follows  the  line  without  confusion,  and  points  out  the  way,  it 
will  do  good.  The  great  purpose  of  the  skeleton  brief  is  to 
keep  the  mind  of  the  advocate  to  the  line  his  theory  has  marked 
out  as  the  way  through  the  case.  If  the  figure  be  not  too  bold, 
it  may  be  said  that  his  skeleton  should  be  a  chart  to  steer  by, 
not  a  compendium  of  rules  on  navigation. 

§338.   Witnesses  should  be  present  —  Depositions.  —  The 

testimony  of  a  witness  present  in  court,  all  other  things  being 
equal,  unquestionably  makes  a  much  stronger  impression  than 
does  testimony  communicated  in  the  form  of  a  deposition. 
Sight  and  hearing  combine,  and  the  attention  is  much  more 
thoroughly  aroused  than  it  is  when  the  testimony  is  read  from 
a  paper.  It  is  only  where  the  attendance  of  an  important  wit- 
ness can  not  possibly  be  secured  that  his  deposition  should  be 
substituted  for  his  oral  testimony.  Testimony  in  the  form  of 
a  deposition  is  competent  in  a  proper  case,  and  it  would  prob- 
ably be  error  to  instruct,  as  matter  of  law,  that  such  testimony 
is  of  less  weight  than  that  delivered  from  the  witness-stand  by 
the  witness  himself;  but,  nevertheless,  testimony  in  the  form 
of  a  deposition,  as  experience  abundantly  proves,  will  not  go 
so  deep  in  the  mind,  nor  remain  so  firmly  in  memory,  as  that 
which  is  given  by  the  witness  in  the  sight  and  hearing  of  the 
jury.^  In  proof  of  this,  if  proof  be  needed,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  instance  the  drama,  for  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  sight  of 
the  actors,  as  the  play  is  developed  on  the  stage,  intensifies 
the  power  of  the  words  they  speak.  Another  reason  why 
depositions  should  not  be  used  when  the  presence  of  the  wit- 

'  Carver  v.  Louthain,  38  Ind.  530;  Law,    Chap.   8;     Ram   on   Facts,  38. 

Millner  v.  Eglin,  64  Ind.  197;    Stark-  "Things  seen  are  mightier  than  things 

ie's  Ev.  (Sharswood's  ed.),  767;  3  Ba-  heard."    Tennyson, 
con's  Abridg.,  560 ;  Institutes  of  Hindu 


§  339  PRECAUTIONARY    STEPS.  421 

ness  can  be  secured  is  tliat  many  things  are  brought  to  mind, 
as  the  contest  warms  the  mental  powers  to  increased  activity, 
and  are  seen  to  be  important,  which  were  either  not  thought 
of,  or  the  importance  of  whicli  was  not  perceived,  when  pre- 
paring interrogatories  in  the  quiet  of  the  office. 

§  339.   Care  required  in  takiiio:  precautionary  measures. — 

Resources  ought  not  only  to  be  known,  but  to  be  at  command, 
before  the  fight  is  on.^  A  long  look  ahead,  as  long  as  sagacity 
and  study  will  enable  one  to  take,  and  a  careful  estimate  of 
what  is  to  be  done  and  what  is  required  to  do  it,  are  precau- 
tions which  the  prudent  advocate  never  omits.  The  man  who 
does  not  begin  to  be  in  earnest  in  his  work  until  the  trial  is  at 
hand  will  owe  inore  to  fortune  than  to  merit  if  he  is  not 
soundly  whipped.  No  great  result  can  surely  be  accomplished 
if  precautionary  measures  are  not  taken  in  good  season.  As 
much  care  is  required  in  precautipnary  measures,  although 
neither  so  much  ability  nor  so  much  work  is  required,  as  in 
conducting  the  trial.  The  advocate  must  be  both  quartermas- 
ter and  general,  for  he  must  secure  the  materials  of  forensic 
warfare  as  well  as  make  them  weapons  of  attack  or  of  defense. 
If  he  has  guns  without  percussion  caps  he  might  as  well  have 
none  at  all. 

'"Above  all,  a  perfect  understand-     inous,  should  be  most  anxiously  sought 
ingof  these  points,  in  regard  to  which    after."     Law  Magazine. 
a  false  step  taken  in  court  may  be  ru- 


CHAPTER  X. 


BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS. 


§  340.  The  ancient  practice.  §  359, 

341.  The  modern  practice.  360, 

342.  Necessity  for  notice — Due  pro-  361, 

cess  of  law.  362, 

343.  Writ  or  notice  must  be  author-  363. 

ized  by  law. 

344.  Power  of  legislature  to  prescribe  364. 

what  the  notice  shall  be.  365. 

345.  Defective  process.  366. 

346.  Direct  and  collateral  attacks. 

347.  How  action  is  brought.  367. 

348.  Style  of  process.  368. 

349.  Name  and  title  of  court.  369. 
a50.  Name  of  plaintiff.  370. 

351.  Name  of  defendant.  371. 

352.  Nature  and  extent  of  plaintiff's  372. 

claim.  373. 

353.  Date  of  summons  and  return. 

354.  Signature  and  seal.  374. 

355.  Amendments.  375. 

356.  Service — By  whom. 

357.  Personal  service.  376. 

358.  Service  by  leaving  copy  at  place 

of  residence. 


Service  on  corporations. 

Service  on  partners. 

Service  on  infants. 

Service  by  publication. 

Statute  must  be  strictly  fol- 
lowed. 

Affidavit  for  publication. 

Order  and  notice. 

Requisites  as  to  newspaper  in 
which  publication  is  made. 

Time  of  publication. 

Proof  of  publication. 

Mailing  and  posting  notice. 

Objections. 

Waiver. 

Return  and  proof  of  service. 

Privilege — E x em p t i o n  from 
service  of  process. 

Capias  ad  respondendum. 

Process  on  cross-bill  and  sup- 
plemental complaint. 

Alias  and  pluries  writs. 


§  340.  The  ancient  practice. — The  old  common  law  mode  of 
commencing  an  action  at  law  was  by  suing  out  what  was  called 
an  original  writ.  This  writ  closely  resembled  the  writ  known 
in  modern  procedure  as  the  alternative  writ  of  mandamus.  In 
form  it  was  a  duly  authenticated  letter  addressed  to  the  sheriff 
commanding  him  to  make  due  service  upon  the  defendant,  and 
containing  a  concise  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  plaintiff's 
demand.  Considerable  strictness  was  required  in  stating  the 
claim.  Deviations  from  the  rule  prescribing  the  requisites  of 
the  writ  that  courts  would  now  regard  as  utterly  immaterial 
were  in  the  early  years  of  the  law  held  fatal  to  the  plaintiff's 
case,  and  a  variance  between  the  writ  and  the  declaration  was 

(422) 


§341  BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS.  423 

sufficient  to  put  the  plaintiff  out  of  court. ^  Prior  to  the  statute 
enacted  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  suits  in  equity  were 
commenced  by  suing  out  of  the  court  of  chancery  a  subpa'na, 
but  from  that  time  until  the  change  to  the  present  system  the 
practice  was  to  file  the  bill,  and  upon  the  filing  of  the  bill,  and 
in  some  jurisdictions  a  precipe  for  a  writ,  the  subpoena  issued. 

§  341 .  The  modern  practice. — The  original  writ  of  the  com- 
mon law  and  the  subpoena  of  chancery  have  in  modern  prac- 
tice been  superseded  by  a  writ  of  summons,  although  the 
term  "subpoena"  is  still  applied  to  the  writ  issued  by  a  court 
of  chancery.  Under  the  system  which  prevails  in  almost  all 
of  the  States,  as  well  as  in  the  English  dominions,  the  writ 
which  brings  a  defendant  into  court  is  a  summons  requiring 
him  to  appear  to  the  complaint,  petition,  declaration  or  bill  of 
the  plaintiff.^  The  strictness  of  the  early  decisions  has  given 
way  to  liberal  rules  and  the  courts  are  slow  to  sustain  an  attack 
upon  a  summons.  As  we  shall  hereafter  see,  a  summons  will 
be  held  sufficient  unless  the  defect  is  a  very  material  one. 

§  342.  Necessity  for  notice — Due  process  of  law. — The  right 
to  notice  is  a  constitutional  one.  Where  there  is  no  notice 
there  can  be  no  valid  judgment  unless  the  party  entitled  to 
notice  has  expressly  or  impliedly  waived  his  right.  It  is  the 
notice  that  gives  the  defendant  "his  day  in  court."-     That  he 

*  Lloyd  r.  AVilliams,  2  Blk.  R.  722;  leans,  27  La.  Ann.  457 ;  Hannat'.  Rus- 

The  Weavers  Co.   v.   Forrest,  2  Str.  sell,  12  Minn.  80;  Gilmer  v.  Bird,  15 

1232;  Canning  r.  Davis,  4  Burr.  2417;  Fla.  410;    Bailey  v.  Williams,  6  Ore. 

Duvall  tj.  Craig,  2  W'heat.  45;  Cole  v.  71;    Whitney  v.  Blackburn,    17   Ore. 

Peniwell,  5  Blackf.  175.  564,  S.  C.  11  Am.   St.    R.   857.     See, 

'The  term   "process"  is  often  ap-  generally,  State  v.  Ferguson,  31  N.  J. 

plied  to  all  writs,  original,  mesne  and  L.  283;  Arnold  v.  Chapman,  13  R.  I. 

final,  but  some  of  the  courts  hold  tliat  586;    Dwight  r.   :Merritt,   18   Bhitchf. 

the  term  does  not  embrace  a  summons  305;    Taylor   r.  Henry,  2  Pick.   397; 

or  the  writ  which  brings  the  defend-  Kennard  v.  Louisiana,  92  U.  S.  480; 

ant  into    court.     Gowdy  v.   Sanders,  Falvey  r.  Jones,  80  Ga.  130;  Drexel  w. 

88  Ky.  346,  11  S.  W.  R.  82;  Sprague  r.  :\riller.  49  Pa.  St.  24(5;  People  v.  Nev- 

Birchard,  1  Wis.  457 ;    Comet  Consol-  ins,  1  Hill,  154;  Wilson  r.  St.  Louis, 

idated  Mining  Co.r.  Frost,  15  Colo.310,  etc.,  R'y  Co.,  108  Mo.  588,  S.  C.  32  Am, 

25  Pac.  R.  506;  Fitzpatrick  v.  New  Or-  St.  Rep.  624. 


424 


THE    WOKK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§343 


should  have  such  a  day  the  common  law  requires/  and  the 
Federal  and  State  constitutions  have  placed  it  beyond  the  power 
of  the  legislative  department  to  take  away  this  common  law 
right.2  The  true  doctrine  is  that  where  there  is  no  notice  and 
no  waiver  by  express  agreement  or  by  conduct  there  is  not  due 
process  of  law,  and  where  there  is  not  due  process  of  law  there 
can  be  no  valid  judgment.^ 

§  343.   Writ  or  notice  must  be  authorized  by  law.— The 

writ  or  notice  which  brings  a  defendant  into  court  and  gives 
the  tribunal  jurisdiction  of  the  person  must  be  authorized  by 
law.  If  there  is  no  law  authorizing  or  providing  for  notice 
and  no  appearance  or  waiver  the  proceedings  will  be  absolutely 

1  "It  is  obviously  a  principle  of  nat- 
ural justice,"  says  Mr.  Chitty,  "and  it 
is  consequently  a  maxim  in  our  mu- 
nicipal law,  that  no  one  should  be 
condemned  unheard,   and  hence  the 
necessity  for  process  to  be  in  general 
actually  served  on  a  defendant,  there- 
by summoning  him  or  warning  or  com- 
pelling him  to  appear  in  court  to  hear 
the  complaint  against  him.     And  to 
such  an  extent  was  this  maxim  carried 
in  our  ancient  law,  that   a  plaintiff 
could  not  declare  or  proceed  in  an  ac- 
tion before  the  defendant  had  actually 
appeared  in  court  to  answer  the  plaint- 
iff."   SChitty'sGen.  Prac,  141.     The 
learned  author  advises  the  student  to 
read  the  opinion  of  Bayley,  J.,  in  Will- 
iams  V.    Lord    Bagot,  3   B  &  0.  772. 
This  principle  was  long  ago  embodied 
in  the  old  maxim  that  "no  man's  cause 
should  be  heard  where  he  is  not  given 
notice,  nor  any  man  condemned  un- 
heard and  unsummoned."    Coke  says 
that  "he  who  decides  anything,  one 
party  being  unheard,  though  he  decide 
rightly,  does  wrong."    See,  generally, 
Eskridge  V.Jones,  1  Smed.  &M.(Miss.) 
595 ;  Flowers  v.  Foreman,  23  How.(U. 
S.)  132. 
*  Stuart  V.  Palmer,  74  N.Y.  183 ;  Peo- 


ple r.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  1,  S.  C.  2 
Lawyers'  R.  Anno.  255;  Campbell  ■«. 
Campbell,  63  111.  462 ;  Happy  v.  Mosh- 
er,  48  N.Y.  313 ;  Kennard  v.  Louisiana, 
92  U.  S.  480;  Rowan  v.  State,  30  Wis. 
129;  Ziegler  v.  South.  &  North.  Ala. 
R.  R.  Co.,  58  Ala.  494;  Johnson  v.  Jo- 
het,  23  111.  202;  State  v.  Fond  du  Lac, 
42  Wis.  287 ;  Seiferti'.  Brooks,  34  Wis. 
443;  Whiteford  Tp.  v.  Probate  Judge, 
53  Mich.  130;  Kuntz  v.  Sumption,  117 
Ind.  1;  Kingston  v.  Towle,  48  N.  H. 
57;  Holliday  v.  Swailes,  1  Scam.  (111.) 
515;  Bissell  v.  Briggs,  9  Mass.  462. 

3  Pennoyer  v.  Neff ,  95  U.  S.  714 ;  In  re 
Hatch,  43  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  89;  South 
Platte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  7  Neb.  253; 
Hutson  V.  Woodbridge,  etc.,  79  Cal.  90, 
16  Pac.R.549 ;  Pryor  v.  Downey,  50  Cal. 
388;  Springer  v.  United  States,  102  U. 
S.  586;  County  of  San  Mateo  «.  South- 
ern Pacific  Co.,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cases,  1 ;  Brown  v.  Board,  etc.,  50 
Miss.  468 ;  Westervelt  v.  Gregg,  12  N. 
Y.  202 ;  Camp  v.  Rogers,  44  Conn.  291 ; 
Bartlett  v.  Wilson,  59  Vt.  23,  S.  C.  8 
Atl.  R.  321 ;  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans, 
96  U.  S.  97;  Campbell  v.  Dwiggins,  83 
Ind.  473 ;  Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.Y. 
59;  Bradley  v.  Fisher,  13  AVall.  335; 
Ex  parte  Robinson,  19  Wall.  505. 


§  344  BRINGING    THE    ACTION rUOCKSS.  425 

void.^  A  statute  conl'erriii^^  upcjii  u  trihmial  power  to  take  or 
finally  dispose  of  the  property  of  an  individual  without  notice 
or  s(Hiie  provision  giving  liim  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  is 
unconstitutional.'^  And  the  fact  that  the  party  actually  has 
notice  of  the  proceeding  will  not  cure  the  defect  in  the  statute.^ 

§  344.  Power  of  the  Icgishxture  to  prescribe  what  the  notice 
shall  be. — The  legislature  has  a  wide  discretion  in  regard  to 
what  the  notice  of  a  suit  or  action  shall  he  and  how  and  by 
whom  the  notice  shall  be  served.*  While  it  is  well  agreed  that 
there  must  be  some  notice,  yet  it  is  not  easy  to  extract  from 
the  decisions  any  rule  for  determining  the  limits  of  the  legis- 
lative power  over  this  subject.  It  seems  safe  to  say  that  the 
form  of  the  notice  and  the  time  and  manner  of  service  are 
questions  for  legislative  determination,  subject  only  to  the 
limitation  that  the  notice  must  be  of  such  a  nature  and  so 
timely  served  as  to  give  the  defendant  a  reasonable  opportunity 
to  be  heard.  We  suppose  that  a  statute  providing  for  a  notice 
or  summons  so  clearly  insufficient  as  to  deprive  the  defendant 
of  the  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  due  course  of  law  would  be 
adjudged  void  because  antagonistic  to  the  fundamental  rule 
which  secures  to  every  citizen  his  day  in  court. ^ 

^  See  authorities  cited  in  the  next  Garvin   v.   Daussman,  114   Ind.   429; 

two  notes  below.     In  a  case  in  which  Campbell  v.  Dwiggins,   83  Ind.  473; 

unauthorized    publication    of    notice  White  ford  Tp.  v.  Probate  Judge,  53 

was  made,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Mich.  130;    Brown  v.  City  of  Denver, 

United  States  said:     "There  is  an  ob-  7  Col.  305;    City  of  Philadelphia  v. 

vious  distinction  in   reason  between  Miller,49Pa.  St.  440;  Overingc.  Foote, 

this  case   and  the   case  where   there  65N.  Y.  2(33;    Johnson  r.  Joliet,  etc., 

has  been  personal  service  of  irregular  R.  R.  Co.,  23  111.  124;    Santa  Clara  v. 

or  erroneous  process.     In   that  case  So.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

the  party  has  notice  in  part,  and  may,  R.  Cas.  182. 

if  he  will,  appear  and  object  to  or  '  Kuntz  r.  Sumption,  117  Ind.  1. 

waive  the  irregularity  ;    in   this,  the  *  Walker  r.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Cush. 

publication  being  unauthorized,  is  not  1 ;  Salem  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mass. 

even  constructive  notice;    and,  unless  431;    ^lason  r.   Messenger,  17  Iowa, 

the  proceedings  are  considered  as  void,  2(il  ;    ^Matter  of  the  Village  of  Middle- 

the  injured  party  may  be  remediless."  town,  S2  N.  Y.  19B. 

Ilollingsworth  v.  Barbour,  4  Peters  (U.  ^  The  essential  elements  of  a  writ  of 

S.),  4(i(),  47().  summons,  as  given  by  Mr.  Chitty,  are 

'Stuart  V.   Palmer,    74   N.  Y.  183;  in  substance  these:     1.  That  it  should 


426  Tin:  WORK  out  of  court.  §  315 

§  345.  Defective  process. — If  there  is  a  writ  issued  under  a 
law  authorizing  it  tlie  judgment  will  not  be  void  although  the 
defect  ma}''  be  so  serious  as  to  render  the  writ  ineffective  as 
against  a  direct  and  seasonable  attack.  It  requires,  according 
to  the  rule  which  prevails  in  nearly  all  of  the  States,  errors  or 
omissions  of  a  material  nature  to  overthrow  a  summons,  and  er- 
rors which  would  be  fatal  in  a  direct  attack  made  at  the  proper 
time  may  be  entirely  destitute  of  force  in  a  collateral  assault. 
There  is  an  essential  difference  between  overthrowing  judg- 
ments by  a  collateral  proceeding  and  reversing  them  on  appeal 
or  annulling  them  by  some  other  direct  proceeding. 

§  346.  Direct  and  collateral  attacks. — The  reports  contain 
cases  wherein  it  appears  that  attorneys  were  led  into  serious 
error  by  the  failure  to  discriminate  between  direct  and  collat- 
eral attacks  upon  judgments  so  that  it  seems  appropriate,  if 
not  necessary,  to  refer  to  the  difference  between  direct  and  col- 
lateral attacks.^  If  there  is  any  notice  or  process  purporting 
to  be  issued  pursuant  to  law  and  there  is  a  law  authorizing 
such  notice  or  process  the  judgment  will  repel  a  collateral  as- 
sault although  the  process  may  be  defective.^  The  cases  go 
very  far  in  sustaining  judgments  against  collateral  attacks, 
and  a  writ  or  notice,  if  it  professes  to  conform  to  the  law  and 
does  in  some  measure  do  what  it  professes,  will  uphold  a  judg- 
ment as  against  a  collateral  attack,  although  it  might  be  radi- 
cally defective  upon  a  direct  attack.^     "The  objects  to  be  ac- 

explicitly    inform   the    defendant  in  Encyc.  of  Law,  147],  et  seq.;    note  to 

what  court  or  office  he  should  enter  Hahn  v.  Kelly,  94  Am.  Dec.  742,  762. 

his  appearance  or  put  in  bail.    2.  That  =>  Van  Fleet's  Collateral  Attack,  §329. 

it  should  be  served  upon  him  a  suffi-  There  is  a  clear  and  well  defined  dis- 

cient  time  to  enable  him  without  in-  tinction  between  a  defective   notice 

convenient  hurry  to  so  appear,  or,  ac-  and  an  absolute  want  of  notice, 

cording  to  modern  practice,  to  secure  '.Tackson    v.   State,    104    Ind.   51C; 

an  attorney.     3.  That  it  should  give  Essig  v.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239;    Quarl 

the  defendant  reasonable  information  v.   Abbett,    102   Ind.    233;    Brown  v. 

of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  plaint-  Gol)le,  97  Ind.  86;    Muncey  -y.  Joest, 

iff's  claim.     3  Chitty  Gen.  Prac,  143.  74  Ind.  409;    Hume  v.   Conduitt,    76 

'  See  note  to  Morrill  v.  Morrill,  23  Ind.  598;    Kleyla  v.  Haskett,  112  Ind. 

Am.  St.  E.  95, 104,  S.  C.  12  Am.  &  Eng.  515,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  E.  387 ;    Hackett  v. 


^346 


BRINGING    TJIK    ACTION' I'liOCKSS. 


427 


complished  ])y  a  pi-Dcess,"  says  Mr.  Freeman,  "are  to  advise 
the  defendant  that  an  action  lias  heen  commenced  against  him 
by  plaintiff,  and  warn  liini  that  he  must  appear  within  a  time 
and  at  a  place  named  and  make  such  defense  as  ho  has,  and  in 
default  of  his  so  doing,  thai  judgment  against  liim  will  he  ap- 
plied for  or  taken  in  a  sum  designated,  or  for  relief  specified. 
If  the  summons  actually  issued  accomplishes  these  purposes, 
it  should  be  held  sufficient  to  confer  jurisdiction,  though  it 
may  be  irregular  in  not  containing  other  statements  re(iuired 
by  the  statute."^  This  is,  perhaps,  as  correct  a  statement  of 
the  general  rule  as  can  be  made;  yet,  as  will  hereafter  be 
shown,  a  summons  defective  in  some  of  these  particulars,  may 
be  sufficient  to  support  a  judgment  as  against  a  collateral  at- 
tack. Where  a  court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter 
and  it  is  necessary  to  determine  whether  facts  essential  to  ju- 
risdiction exist,  a  judgment  that  they  do  exist  is  generally 
conclusive  as  against  a  collateral  attack.^  The  conclusion  of 
the  court  upon  a  matter  which,  by  law,  it  was  authorized  to 
determine,  may  be  erroneous,  but  it  can  not  be  void.^     It  fol- 


State,  113  Ind.  532,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R. 
799;  Bonsell  v.  Isett,  14  Iowa,  309; 
Betts  r.  Baxter,  58  Miss.  334;  Isaacs 
V.  Price,  2  Dill,  347 ;  Hendrick  r. Whit- 
temore,  105  Mass.  23;  Cookr.  Darling, 
18  Pick.  (Mass.)  393;  McLain  r.  Dun- 
can, 57  Ark.  49,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  597 ; 
Paine  v.  Mooreland,  15  Ohio,  435 ;  Den- 
man  r.  McGuire,  101  N.Y.  161 ;  Sheldon 
•D.AVright,  5 N.Y. 497 ;  Hobson  v.  Ewan, 
62  111.  146;  Delaney  v.  Gault,  30  Pa. 
St.  63;  People  v.  Ilagar,  52  Cal.  171. 
"If  there  be  a  notice  or  publication, 
or  whatever  the  law  requiies  in  refer- 
ence to  persons  or  other  matters,  its 
sufficiency  can  not  be  questioned  col- 
laterally." Morrow  v.  Weed,  4  Iowa, 
77.  See,  also,  Ballinger  v.  Tarbell,  16 
Iowa,  491,  S.  C.  85  Am.  Dec.  527; 
Shawhan  v.  Loffer,  24  Iowa,  217. 

'  1  Freeman  on  Judgments,  215, 
^126. 

'Cooper   V.   Sunderland,    3    Clarke 


(Iowa),  114;  Riley  v.  Waugh,  8  Cush. 
220;  Henderson  r.  Brown,  1  Caines 
(N.  Y.),  92;  Yail  v.  Owen,  19  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  22;  Sheldon  v.  Wright,  5  N. 
Y.  497;  Youngman  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  65  Pa.  St.  278;  Grignon's 
Lessee  v.  Astor,  2  How.  (U.  S.)  319; 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of 
Evansville,  15  Ind.  395;  Forsythe  v. 
Kreuter,  100  Ind.  27 ;  Million  r.  Board, 
89  Ind.  5,  14;  Fischer  v.  Holmes,  123 
Ind.  525;  Young r.  Wells,  97  Ind.  410; 
Morrill  v.  :\Iorrill,  20  Ore.  96,  S.  C.  23 
Am.  St.  R.  95,  and  note;  Wilkerson 
V.  Schoonmaker,  77  Texas,  615,  S.  C.  19 
Am.  St.  R.  803,  and  note ;  Ela  v.  Smith, 
5  Gray,  121,  S.  C.  66  Am.  Dec.  356; 
Coloma  V.  Eaves,  92  U.  S.  484 ;  Spauld- 
ing  V.  Homestead  Ass'n,  87  Cal.  40; 
Goodwin  V.  Sims,  86  Ala.  102,  S.  C.  11 
Am.  St.  R.  21. 
'  1  Freeman  on  Judgments,  §  126. 


428  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  347 

lows,  therefore,  that  the  judgment  of  the  court,  in  such  a  case, 
even  though  erroneous,  is  conclusive,  upon  collateral  attack, 
as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  process.  But  a  personal  judgment, 
in  proceedings  iii  personam,  is  absolutely  void  and  subject  to  a 
collateral  attack,  where  the  record  shows  that  there  was  a 
total  failure  of  notice  and  the  defendant  did  not  appear.^  And 
this  is  true  where  a  personal  judgment  is  rendered  against  a 
non-resident  and  the  only  notice  is  by  publication.^ 

§  347.  How  action  is  brought. — The  ordinary  method  of 
bringing  an  action  is  to  file  a  complaint  or  petition  with  the 
clerk  of  the  proper  court  and  to  cause  a  summons  to  be  issued 
thereon.  It  is  a  maxim  of  jurisprudence  as  well  as  a  consti- 
tutional provision  that  every  one  is  entitled  to  his  day  in  court, 
and  that  no  one  shall  be  condemned  unheard.'^  Hence,  the 
necessity  for  process  notifying  and  summoning  the  defendant 
to  appear  in  court  to  answer  the  complaint  against  him.  The 
essential  requisites  of  the  summons  and  the  manner  and  proof 
of  its  service  are  considered  in  the  following  sections. 

§  348.    Style  of  process. — It  is  provided,  either  by  constitu- 

1  Shaefer  v.  Gates,  2  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  "  Renier  v.  Hurlbut,  81  Wis.  24,  S.  C. 
453,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  164;  Anderson  29  Am.  St.  R.  850,  and  note;  Fowler 
V.  Miller,  4  Blackf .  417 ;  Allen  v.  Chad-  v.  Lewis,  36  W.  Va.  112,  S.  C.  14  S.  E. 
sey,  1  Ind.  399 ;  Horner  v.  Doe,  1  R.  447 ;  De  Meli  v.  De  Meli,  120  N.  Y. 
Ind.  130,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  355,  and  485,  S.  C.  17  Am.  St.  R.  652.  See 
note ;  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714 ;  post,  §  362.  In  Hardy  v.  Beaty,  84 
St.  Clair  V.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  350;  Hoi-  Texas,  562,  S.  C.  31  Am.  St.  R. 
lingsworth  v.  Barbour,  4  Pet.  466;  80,  it  was  held  that  an  action  of 
Freeman  v.  Alderson,  119  U.  S.  185;  trespass  to  try  title  to  an  undivided 
EUot  V.  McCormack,  144  Mass.  10;  interest  in  land  was  a  proceeding  in 
Capehart  v.  Cunningham,  12  W.  Va.  rem,  but  that  a  judgment  m  personam 
750;  Anderson  V.  Hawhe,  115  111.  33;  in  such  a  proceeding  against  a  non- 
Tyler  V.  Peatt,  30  Mich.  63;  Outh-  resident  defendant,  served  only  by 
wite  V.  Porter,  13  Mich.  533;  Ander-  publication,  for  costs,  was  void  and 
son  V.  Brown,  9  Mo.  646;  Hawley  v.  therefore  subject  to  a  collateral  attack. 
Heyman,  28  La.  Ann.  347;  North  v.  ^  Williams  v.  Lord  Bagot,  3  B.  &  C. 
Moore,  8  Kan.  143 ;  Moore  v.  Watkins,  772,  786 ;  Eskridge  v.  Jones,  1  Smed. 
1  Ark.  268;  Great  West.  Min.  Co.  v.  &  M.(Miss.)  595;  Holliday?'.  Swailes, 
Woodman  Min.  Co.,  12  Colo.  46,  S.  C.  2  111.  515 ;  Bissel  v.  Briggs,  9  Mass.  462 ; 
20  Pac.  R.  771 ;  Duncan  v.  Gerdine,  59  Bradley  v.  Fisher,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  335. 
Miss.  550. 


•§  349  BRINGING    TH1-:    ACTION I'KOCESS.  429 

tioii  or  statute,  in  many  of  the  States,  that  all  process  shall  run 
in  the  name  of  "The  State"  or  "The  People."  But  a  defector 
irregularity  in  this  respect  will  not,  according  to  the  better 
reason  and  the  weight  of  authority,  make  the  proceedings  ab- 
solutely void.'  In  an  Arkansas  case  the  process  did  not  run 
in  the  name  of  ajiy  one,  and  it  was  held  amendable  after  plea 
in  abatement. ■■^  Some  courts,  however,  have  held  that  the  fail- 
ure of  process  to  nm  in  the  name  of  the  people,  as  required  by 
the  constitution,  will  prevent  jurisdiction  from  attaching  and 
render  the  proceedings  void.^ 

§  349.  Namo  and  title  of  coiirt. — The  summons  should  in- 
form the  defendant  in  what  court  or  office  he  is  required  to 
appear.*  But  a  misnomer  of  the  court  is  not  a  material  defect 
■where  there  is  but  one  court  that  could  have  been  intended  and 
the  defendant  could  not  have  been  misled  thereby.^  And  where 
summons  was  served  by  leaving  a  copy  at  the  last  and  usual 
place  of  residence  of  the  defendant,  it  was  held  that  the  fact 
that  the  court  was  named  as  the  "Common  Pleas  Court,"  in- 
stead of  the  "Court  of  Common  Pleas,"  and  that  the  seal  was 
not  copied  did  not  render  the  summons  insufficient  even  upon 
motion  to  quash  it  and  set  aside  the  service.^ 

§  350.  Name  of  plaintiff. — The  defendant  has  a  right  to 
know  at  whose  suit  he  is  required  to  come  into  court,  and  the 
name  of  the  plaintiff  should,  therefore,  be  stated  in  the  sum- 
mons. The  character  in  which  he  sues,  whether  in  person  or 
in   a  representative   capacitj'-,  should   also  be  stated.     And  it 

'Kahn  v.  Kuhn,44  Ark.  404;   Hrew-  ling,  94  :\Ii(li.  (i21,  S.  C.  54  N.  AV.  R. 

ster  V.   Ludekins,    H)   Cal.    162,    171  ;  38.5. 

Hansford  i'.  Hansford,  34  Mo.  xVpp.  *3  Chitty'sGen.  Pr.,  143;  Kitzmiller 

262,  272;    Carson  v.  Sheldon,  51  Mo.  v.  Kitchen,  24  Iowa,  163. 

436;  Livingston  v.  Coe,  4  Neb.  379;  *  New  Eng.   Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starin,  60 

Hsley  r.  Harris,  10  AVis.95;  Mabbett  Conn.  369,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.953;  Ralph 

•w.  Vick,  53  Wis.  158.  v.  Lomer,  3  "Wash.  401,  S.  C.  28  Pac. 

^  Mitchell  V.  Conley,  13  Ark.  414.  R.  760.     See,  also,  Goudy  v.  Hall,  36 

3  Wallahan  v.  Ingersoll,  117  111.  123,  111.  313,  S.  C.  87  Am.  Dec.  217;  Bond 

S.  C.  7  N.  E.  R.  519 ;  Yeager  v.  Groves,  v.  Epley,  48  Iowa,  600 ;  Hollingsworth 

78  Ky.  278.     See,  also,  Forbes  c  Dar-  v.  State,  111  Ind.  289. 

«  Hughes  «'.  Osborn,  42  Ind.  450. 


430 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


351 


was  held  at  common  law  that  if  a  writ  names  one  plaintiff  and 
the  declaration  two,  the  proceedings  might  be  set  aside  for  ir- 
regularity.^ But  a  misnomer  of  the  plaintiff,  even  when  a  cor- 
poration aggregate,  has  been  held  not  to  be  a  sufficient  ground 
for  nonsuit;^  and  under  the  liberal  rules  and  statutes  in  most 
of  the  States,  a  defect  in  any  of  these  particulars  could  doubt- 
less be  remedied  by  amendment,  and  would  not  make  the  writ 
absolutely  void.^ 

§  351.  Name  of  defendant  .—The  name  of  the  defendant  and 
the  character  in  which  he  is  sued  should  also  be  stated  in  the 
summons.-^  It  has  been  held  that  where  the  wrong  name  is 
stated  in  the  summons  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  unless  the 
defendant  appears;^  but  it  is  otherwise  if  the  names  are  idem 
sonans/'  and  where  the  defendant  is  actually  served  a  misnomer 
ought  not  to  vitiate  the  summons  and  proceedings,  at  least  as 
against  a  collateral  attack.^     If  the  name  of  the  defendant  is 


1  Rogers  v.  Jenkins,  1  Bos.  &  P.  383 ; 
Lewin  v.  Smith,  4  East,  589.  So, where 
the  writ  is  at  the  suit  of  a  husband  and 
the  declaration  is  by  the  husband  and 
wife.     Reeks  v.  Robins,  Barnes,  337. 

^  Mayor  v.  Bolton,  1  Bos.  &  P.  40; 
BoughtoTi  V.  Frere,3  Camp.  29;  Gard- 
ner V.  Walker,  3  Aust.  935. 

'  The  judgment,  in  such  a  case,  would 
not  necessarily  be  void  as  against  a 
collateral  attack  by  the  defendant. 
Kronski  r.  Mo.  Pac.  R.R.  Co.,  77  Mo. 
362;  IV'cGaughey  v.  Woods,  106  Ind. 
380,  S.  C.  7  N.  E.  R.  7.  Contra,  Ex 
parte  Cheatham,  1  Eng.  (Ark.)  531, 
S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  525. 

^3  Chitty's  Gen.  Pr.,  166,  181,  256. 

s  BarnetttJ.Tayler,  30 Tex. 453 ;  Moul- 
ton  V.  de  ma  Carty,  6  Rob.  (N.Y.  Sup.) 
470;  Fanning  t?.  Krapfl,  61  Iowa,  417. 
See,  also.  Bendy  v.  Boyce,  37  Tex.  443 ; 
Anderson  v.  Brown,  16  Texas,  554; 
Bates  V.  State  Bank,  7  Ark.  394,  S.  C. 
46  Am.  Dec.  293;  Clark  v.  Gilmer,  28 
Ala.  265. 

"Miller  v.  Brenham,  68  N.  Y.  83; 


Buchanan  v.  Roy,  2  Ohio  St.  251 ;  Rob- 
ertson V.  Winchester,  85  Tenn.  171,  S. 
C.  1  S.  W.  R.  781.  But  see  Kennedy 
V.  Merriam,  70  111.  228. 

'  La  Fayette  Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18 
How.  (U.  S.)  404;  Bloomfield  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Burress,  82  Ind.  83;  Parry  v. 
Woodson,  33  Mo.  347,  S.  C.  84  Am. 
Dec.  51  ;  Hoffield  v.  Board,  33  Kan. 
644,  S.  C.  7  Pac.  R.  216 ;  Lewis  r.  Grace, 
44  Ala.  307;  Burton  r.  Buckeye  Ins. 
Co.,  26  Ohio  St.  467 ;  Welch  v.  Hull,  73 
Mich.  47,  40  N.  W.  R.  797.  An  alias 
summons  against  one  of  several  de- 
fendants need  not  name  those  already 
served.  Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111.  66.  A 
summons  against  "S.,  trustee  of  B. 
civil  township"  is  not  a  writ  against 
the  township,  and  it  is  not  bound  to 
take  notice  of  it.  Vogelv.  Brown  Tp., 
112  Ind.  299.  But  a  summons  against 
"trustee  C.  school  township"  is  against 
the  trustee  in  his  official  capacity,  and 
the  township  must  take  notice.  Cicero 
^School  Twp.  V.  The  Chicago  Nat.  Bank, 
127  Ind.  79. 


§352 


BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS. 


431 


unknown,  that  fact  should  he  stated  in  the  summons  and  he 
may  he  otherwise  idcntiiied  therein,  or,  under  some  statutes,  a 
fictitious  name  may  be  used  and  the  real  name  inserted  when 
discovered.* 


§  352.  Nature  and  extent  of  plaintiff's  claim. — It  is  proper 
that  information  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  plaintiff's  claim 
should  be  given  in  the  summons,  or  by  indorsement  thereon.^ 
But  "where  a  defendant  is  served  with  summons  it  is  his  duty 
to  appear  and  ascertain  the  natui-o  of  the  cause  of  action  alleged 
against  him,  and  he  can  not  escape  the  consequences  of  his 
neglect  to  do  this,  upon  the  ground  that  the  recital  in  the 
summons  did  not  fully  inform  him  of  the  nature  of  the  cause 
of  action,  or  correctly  describe  the  relief  sought.  "'*  So,  where 
the  statute  provided  that  in  a  proceeding  to  establish  a  drain 
"notice  of  the  pendency  and  prayer  of  the  petition"  should  be 
given,  it  was  held  that  "notice  stating  that  the  report  of  the 
viewers  has  been  filed  and  will  be  heard,"  was  sufficient  as 
against  a  collateral  attack.* 


'  Kollam  V.  Toms,  38  Wis.  592;  Bu- 
chanan r.  Roy,  2  Ohio  St.  251 ;  Bates 
on  Pleading,  80.  It  has  been  held  in 
Kentucky  that  a  summons  against 
"the  unknown  children"  of  a  certain 
person  is  not  a  valid  summons.  Kel- 
lar  V.  Stanley,  86  Ky.  240,  S.  C.  5  S. 
W.  R.  477.  See,  also,  Sandford  v. 
White,56  N.Y.359.  In  Fitzgerald  v.  Sal- 
entine,  10  ]\Iet.  (Mass.)  438,  it  was  said 
that  a  fictitious  name  might  be  used 
and  that  a  misnomer  would  not  render 
the  proceeding  void  where  there  was 
service  on  the  right  party,  but  as  the 
defendant  had  not  been  served  at  all, 
the  judgment  was  held  subject  to  col- 
lateral attack. 

"Chitty's  Gen.  Pr.  143.  And  this 
may  be  necessary  under  a  particular 
statute  or  rule  of  court.  Sawyer  v. 
Robertson,  11  IMont.  41G,  S.  C.  28  Pac. 
Rep.  456;  Schuttler  v.  King,  12  Mont. 
149,  .30  Pac.R.  25 ;  Williamson  r.Ward- 


law,  40  Ga.  702;  Leathers  v.  Morris, 
101  N.  Car.  184;  United  States  r.  Tur- 
ner, 50  Fed.  R.  734;  Watson  r.  Mc- 
Cartney, 1  Neb.  131 ;  Kinney's  PI.  & 
Pr.  (Iowa),  §§  147,  148;  Mood  r.  Tay- 
lor, 12  Iowa,  71.  But,  although  this 
is  required  in  Nebraska,  it  is  heM  that 
the  failure  to  indorse  the  amount  of 
plaintiff's  demand  on  the  summons  is 
of  no  consequence  unless  the  defend- 
ant fails  to  appear.  Crowell  v.  Gallo- 
way, 3  Neb.  219. 

*  Freeman  r.  Paul,  105  Ind.  451,  452. 
See,  also,  Higley  r.  Pollock  (Nev.),  27 
Pac.  R.  895;  Behlow  r.  Shorb,  91  Cal. 
141,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  546;  Gulf,  C.  & 
S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  James,  48  Fed.  R.' 
148 ;  Ritter  v.  Offutt,  40  Md.  207 ;  Ches- 
ter c*i  T.  Coal  c<c  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lickiss, 
72  111.  521 ;  Messervey  r.  Beckwith,  41 
111.  452;  Blair  v.  Wolf,  72  Iowa,  246, 
S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  669. 

*  Montgomery  v.  Wasem,   116  Ind. 


432 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§353 


§  353.  Date  of  suiiiinons  and  return. — The  defendant  is  en- 
titled to  know  at  what  time  he  is  required  to  appear,  and  the 
date  at  wliich  the  summons  is  returnable  should,  therefore,  be 
stated  therein.^  If  the  writ  is  made  returnable  beyond  the  first 
term  of  court  after  it  is  issued  it  will  be  absolutely  void,^  and 
this  has  also  been  held  to  be  the  rule  where  the  writ  is  made 
returnable  to  an  impossible  term  of  court. '^  But  the  fact  that 
a  wrong  day  in  the  term  is  named  will  not  invalidate  the  sum- 
mons where  the  statute  makes  all  such  writs  returnable  on  the 
first  day  of  the  term,  regardless  of  the  time  fixed  in  the  writ.* 
So,  where  a  summons  was  dated  by  mistake  May  21,  and  made 
returnable  April  21,  after  judgment,  which  was  rendered  May 
4,  it  was  held  that  it  was  not  void  as  against  a  collateral  attack.^ 
And  a  similar  ruling  was  made  in  another  case,  where  the  writ 


343,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  795,  and  19  N. 
E.  R.  184. 

'  Lyon  V.  Yanatta,  35  Iowa,  521; 
Kitsmiller  v.  Kitchen,  24  Iowa,  163; 
Phinney  v.  Donahue,  67  Iowa,  192. 

■^Shirley  v.  Hagar,   3  Blackf.   225; 
Crocker  v.   Dunkin,    6    Blackf.   535; 
Carey  v.  Butler,  11  Ind.  391 ;  Briggs 
r.  Sneghan,  45  Ind.  14;  Burk  v.  Bar- 
nard, 4  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  309;  Atkinson 
V.  Taylor,  2  Wils.  117;  Reubel  v. Pres- 
ton, 5  East,  291;  Shirley  v.  Wright, 
Salk.  700 ;  Calhoun  r.  Webster,  2  Scam. 
(111.)  221 ;  Hildreth  r.  Plough,  20  111. 
331;    liocklander  v.    Hocklander,    73 
111.  618;    Kelly  v.  Gilman,  29  N.  H. 
385,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  648;  McAlpine 
V.  Smith,  68  Me.  423.     This  was  the 
rule  at  common  law,  and  it  is  still  the 
general  rule  in  the  absence  of  any 
statute  to  the  contrary.     In  some  of 
the   States  it  is  provided  by  statute 
that,    although   the    summons  would 
otherwise  be  returnable  on  the  first 
day  of  the  next  term,  it  may  be  made 
returnable  after  a  certain  number  of 
days,  in  the  same  term  at  which  it  is 
issued,  by  plaintiff's  counsel  indors- 
ing the  time  upon  the  complaint. 


'  Lowrey  v.  Richmond  &  D.R.R.  Co., 
83  Ga.  504,  10  S.  E.  R.  123;  Hoxie  v. 
Payne,  41  Conn.  539;  Holliday  v. 
Cooper,  3  Mo.  286 ;  Brown  v.  Simpson, 
3  Stew.  (Ala.)  331.  But  it  has  been 
held  in  Indiana  that  a  summons  is  not 
void  merely  because  it  is  made  return- 
able in  vacation.  Ross  v.  Glass,  70 
Ind.  391.  Compare,  however,  Leigh 
V.  Alpaugh,  24  N.  J.  L.  629.  As  to  the 
rule  where  the  day  fixed  for  the  return 
is  dies  non,  see  Gould  v.  Spencer,  5 
Paige  (N.  Y.),  541 ;  Kinney  v.  Emery, 
37  N.  J.  Eq.  339 ;  Ostertagw.  Galbraith, 
23  Neb.  730,  and  compare  Kenworthy 
V.  Peffiat,  4  B.  &  A.  288 ;  BeWv.  Austin, 
13  Pick. (Mass.)  90;  Sanders  v.  Rains, 
10  Mo.  770. 

*  Riggsbee  v.  Bowler,  17  Ind.  167; 
Morgan  v.  Woods,  33  Ind.  23.  See, 
also,  Whitewater,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v. 
Henderson,  3  Ind.  3 ;  Johnson  -p. Clark, 
18  Kan.  157;  Cross  v.  Wilson,  52  Ark. 
312,  S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  576;  De  Tar  v. 
Boone  Co.,  34  Iowa,  488;  Hare  v.  Ni- 
blo,  4Leigh.  (Va.)  359. 

*  Chicago  Dock  and  Canal  Co.  v. 
Kinzie,  93  111.  415,  431 ;  Irions  v.  Key- 
stone Mfg.  Co.,  61  Iowa,  406.     Com- 


§354 


BRINGING    THE    ACTION — PROCESS. 


433 


was  dated  before  the  action  was  cominenced.^  So,  where  a 
judgment  was  rendered  upon  notice  by  publication  before  the 
notice  had  run  for  the  full  statutory  period,  it  was  held  that 
the  judgment,  although  erroneous,  was  not  void,  and  that  it 
was  not  subject  to  collateral  attack.'^ 

§  354.  Sig:nature  and  seal. — The  fact  that  a  summons  is 
signed,  sealed  and  delivered  in  blank  by  tlie  clerk  to  the  plaint- 
iff's attorney,  who  afterwards  inserts  the  names  of  the  parties, 
nature  and  extent  of  the  claim,  and  date  of  issue  and  return, 
will  not  invalidate  it/^  At  common  law  the  writ  was  required 
to  be  tested  by  the  chief  justice  or  chief  baron  of  the  court  from 
which  it  issued,^  and  in  most  of  the  States  it  must  be  signed 
by  the  clerk  and  issued  under  seal  of  the  court. ^  Under  a 
statute  requiring  the  name  of  the  plaintiff  or  his  attorney  to 
be  subscribed  to  the  summons,  any  signature  which  they  may 
adopt,  whether  written,  printed  or  lithographed,  is  sufficient.^ 
And  the  fact  that  the  summons,  except  the  signature  of  the 
clerk,  is  in  the  writing  of  the  plaintiff's  attorney,  will  not  ren- 


pare  Rice  v.  American  National  Bank 
(Col.),  31  Pac.  R.  1024. 

'Woodman  v.  Smith,  37  Me.  21; 
Fort  V.  Milligan,  21  N.  Y.  S.  145. 

«  Essig  V.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239.  See, 
also,  Hoose  v.  Sherrill,  16  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  33.  But  compare  Brownlield  v. 
Dyer,  7  Bush.  (Ky.)  505;  Bird r.  Nor- 
quist,  46  Minn.  318,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 
1132. 

*  Potter  V.  John  Hutchinson  ]\Ifg. 
Co.,  87  Mich.  59,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 
617 ;  Jewett  v.  Garrett,  47  Fed.  R.  625 ; 
Miller  v.  Hall,  1  Spears,  1.  So,  where 
a  constable  or  other  person  fills  the 
blank.  Hafner  v.  Irwin,  4  Ired.  L. 
629,  533;  Baker  v.  Holmes,  27  Me. 
153;  Haskell  r.  Haven,  3  Pick.  (Mass.) 
404.  Compare  Adm'r  of  Whitcomb  v. 
Cook,  39  Vt.  585 ;  Ross  v.  Fuller,  12 
Vt.  265,  270. 

*  3  Chitty's  Gen.  Pr.  202,  257.    See, 

28 


also,  1  Sherin's  PI.  &  Pr.(Mich.)  3531 ; 
Ilowerter  v.  Kelly,  23  Mich.  337;  Ma- 
son's iNIass.  Pr.,  §  25. 

*  See  D wight  w.  Merritt,  18  Blatchf. 
(U.  S.)  305;  2  Poe's  PI.  &  Pr.  560; 
Mason's  Mass.  Pr.,  §  25.  But  in  Col- 
orado, Iowa  and  some  other  States,  it 
need  not  be  under  seal,  and  may  be 
signed  by  the  plaintiff's  attorney. 
Rand  v.  Pantagraph  Stationery  Co.,  1 
Col.  App.  270,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  661; 
Kinney's  PI.  &Pr.  (Iowa),  §  147.  See, 
also,  Whitney  v.  Blackburn,  17  Ore. 
564,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  857 ;  Porter  v. 
Vandercook,  11  Wis.  70. 

*  Herrick  v.  Morrill,  37  Minn.  250, 
S.  C.  5  Am.  State  R.  841.  See,  also, 
Barnard  v.  Heydrick,  49  Barb.  (N.Y.) 
62;  Mezchen  v.  More,  54  Wis.  214; 
Ligare  v.  California  S.  R.  R.  Co.,  76 
Cal.  610,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  Rep.  777. 


434 


THE    -WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§355 


der  it  invalid.^     Nor  will  the  omission  of  a  seal  or  the  use  of  a 
wrong  seal  render  it  void  as  against  a  collateral  attack.^ 


§  355.  Ameiidmeiits. — There  are  many  cases  in  which  de- 
fects in  a  writ  or  return  may  be  cured  by  amendment.  Thus 
where  the  Christian  name  of  the  plaintiff  is  erroneously  stated 
in  the  summons,  the  writ  may  be  amended  so  as  to  state  the 
name  correctly  as  it  appears  in  the  complaint.^  So,  where  the 
defendant  is  erroneously  named,  but  has  been  properly  served.^ 
Defects  and  clerical  mistakes  in  the  teste  of  the  writ,'''  in  dates 
therein,^  and  various  other  irregularities  of  a  similar  nature '^ 
are  amendable  under  the  liberal  rules  and  statutes  in  force  in 
most  jurisdictions.  Indeed,  it  may  be  stated  as  a  general  rule, 
that  a  summons  may  be  amended  whenever  no  injury  can  re- 
sult to  any  one  from  such  amendment.^     But  where  there  is  no 


1  Jewett  V.  Garrett,  47  Fed.  R.  625. 

2  Strong  V.  Catlin,  3  Pinney,  121; 
Crane  v.  Blum,  56  Texas,  325 ;  State 
r.  Davis,  73  Ind.  359;  Joyce  v.  Whit- 
ney, 57  Ind.  550;  State  v.  Ennis,  74 
Ind.  17;  Krug  v.  Davis,  85  Ind.  309. 
See,  also,  Talcott  v.  Rozenberg,  3  Daly, 
203, 207 ;  Dominick  v.  Backer,  3  Barb. 
17;  Gray  V.  Douglass,  81  Me.  427,  S. 
C.  17  Atl.  R.  320;  Heighway  v.  Pen- 
dleton, 15  Ohio,  735;  Rose  v.  Railroad 
Co.,  47  Iowa.  420.  But  compare  State 
V.  Worley,  11  Ired.  L.  (N.  Car.)  242. 

3  Haines  v.  Bottorff,  17  Ind.  348; 
State  V.  Hood,  6  Blackf .  260 ;  Thurber- 
Whvland  Co.  v.  Klittner,16  N.Y.  Supp. 
828,"  S.  C.  42  N.  Y.  S.  R.  157.  But  it 
has  been  held  that  it  can  not  be  so 
amended  as  to  substitute  an  entirely 
different  plaintiff.  Woodward  v. 
Wons,  18  Ind.  296.  Compare  Gulf, 
C.  &  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  James,  4  U.  S. 
App.  19 ;  Scudder  v.  Massengill,  88 Ga. 
245,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  571,  in  which  an 
entire  change  of  name  was  permitted. 
See, also,  Waterman  v.  Dockray,  79  Me. 
149,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  R.  685. 


*  Weaver  v.  Jackson,  8  Blackf.  5 ; 
Johnson  v.  Patterson,  59  Ind.  237; 
Shackman  v.  Little,  87  Ind.  181.  See, 
also.  Indigo  Co.  v.  Ogilvy  (Eng.  Rep.) , 
2Ch.  Div.(1891)31;  Welch  w.  Hull,  73 
Mich.  47,  S.  C.40  N.  W.  R.  797;  Frost 
V.  Paine,  12  Me.  Ill ;  Cleveland?'.  Pol- 
lard, 37  Ala.  556 ;  Phillips  v.  Evans,  64 
Mo.  17. 

*  United  States  v.  Turner,  50  Fed. 
R.  734. 

« Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
son, 86  Ga.  203,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  357; 
Kelly  V.  Harrison,  69  Miss.  856,  S.  C. 
12  So.  R.  261.  Or  in  the  date  of  the 
return.  Kidd  «.  Daugherty,  59  Mich. 
240;  Snyder ?>.  Schram,59How.Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  404 ;  Fisher  v.  Collins,  25  Ark.  97. 

'Telford  v.  Coggins,  76  Ga.  683; 
Prentice  v.  Stefan,  72  Wis.  151,  S.  C. 
39  N.  W.  R.  364 ;  Jewett  v.  Garrett,  47 
Fed.  R.  625 ;  Boyd  v.  Fitch,  71  Ind. 
306 ;  Hunter  v.  Burnsville  Turnp.  Co., 
56  Ind.  213;  State  v.  Davis,  73  Ind. 
359 ;  In  re  Soule,  46  Hun  (N.  Y.) ,  661 ; 
Messervey  v.  Beckwith,  41  111.  452. 

*  See  Chamberlain  v.  Bittersohn,  48 


§355 


BRINGIN(i    THE    ACTION IKOCESS. 


435 


process  at  all,  no  service  and  no  waiver,  there  can,  of  course, 
be  no  amendment.'  An  oiiieer  may  amend  his  return,  so  as  to 
make  it  speak  the  truth,  at  any  time  before  it  is  filed. -^  After 
it  is  filed,  however,  it  becomes  a  record  of  the  court,"  and  the 
officer  can  not  amend  it  without  the  sanction  of  the  court;  ^ 
but  the  court  may,  and  should,  upon  proper  application  and 
notice,  permit  it  to  be  amended  so  as  to  speak  the  truth,  espe- 
cially where  such  amendment  is  necessary  to  support  proceed- 
ings based  upon  the  return.^  In  some  cases  it  is  held  that  no- 
tice to  the  defendant  is  unnecessary,*^  but  the  weight  of  au- 
thority seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the  rule  requiring  notice.^ 
Whether  an  amendment  should  be  permitted  or'  refused  is 
largely  a  matter  of  discretion  with  the  court. ^     And  an  officer 


Fed.  R.  42;  Simcoke  v.  Frederick,  1 
Ind.  54.  In  Glidden  v.  Philbrick,  56 
Me.  222,  it  was  held  that  an  officer 
should  not  be  permitted  to  amend  his 
return  where  it  would  destroy  the 
rights  of  a  bona  fide  purchaser.  See, 
also,  Briggs  v.  tlogdon,  78  Me.  514. 

»  McGhee  v.  Gainesville,  78  Ga.  790, 
S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  670. 

MVatson  v.  Toms,  42  Mich.  561; 
Welsh  V.  Joy,  13  Pick.  (Mass.)  477 ; 
Bates  V.  Willard,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  62; 
State  V.  Melton,  8  Mo.  417;  Spoor  v. 
Holland,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  445;  Mur- 
free  on  Sheriffs,  §§  875-878. 

'Rickards  v.  Ladd,  4  Pac.  C.  L.  J. 
52;  Watkins  v.  Gayle,  4  Ala.  153. 

♦  Watkins  v.  Gayle,  4  Ala.  153 ;  Wil- 
cox V.  Moudy,  89  Ind.  232;  Morrill  v. 
Fitzgerald,  36  Texas,  275. 

^  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ashby,  86  Va.  232,  S.  C.  19  Am.  St.  R. 
898;  Mills  v.  Howland,  2  N.  Dak.  30, 
S.  C.  49  N.W.  R.  413;  Malone  v.  Sam- 
uel, 3  A.  K.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  350,  S.  C.  13 
Am.  Dec.  172,  and  note,  where  many 
authorities  are  collected  upon  this  en- 
tire subject.  Bogue !'.  Prentis,  47  Mich. 
124 ;  De  Armond  r.  Adams,  25  Ind. 455 ; 
New  Albany  <k  S.  R.  R.Co.  v.  Grooms,  9 


Ind.  243 ;  National  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  69  111.  22;  Kirkwood  v. 
Reedy,  10  Kan.  453;  Hart  v.  Adams, 
7  Gray  (Mass.),  581 ;  Corby  r.  Burns, 
36  Mo.  194.  Compare  Reinhart  v. 
Lugo,  86  Cal.  395,  and  the  well  mer- 
ited criticism  of  Mr.  Freeman  thereon, 
in  the  note  to  said  case  as  reported  in 
21  Am.  St.  R.  52,  56. 

« Morris  v.  Trustees,  15  111.  266; 
Kitchen  v.  Reinsky,  42  Mo.  427 ;  Rick- 
ards  V.  Ladd,  4  Pac.  C.  L.  J.  52. 

^O'Connor  v.  Wilson,  57  111.  226; 
Barlow  r.  Standford,  82  111.  298;  Coop- 
wood  V.  Morgan,  34  Miss.  368;  Will- 
iams ('.  Doe,  1  S.  &  M.  559;  Freeman 
on  Executions,  §  358.  See,  also,  Blodg- 
ett  V.  Schaffer,  94  Mo.  652,  7  S.  W.  R. 
436. 

8  Jeffries  v.  Rudloff,  73  Iowa,  60,  S. 
C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  654 ;  Allison  r.  Thomas, 
72  Cal.  562.  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  89;  Shu- 
feldt  r.  Barlass,  33  Neb.  785,  51  N.  W. 
R.  134 ;  Austin  r.  Jordan,  5  Texas,  130 ; 
Johnson  r.  Day,  17  Pick.  (:SIass.)  106; 
Sawyer  r.  Harmon,  136  Mass.  414; 
Foreman  v.  Carter,  9  Kan.  674;  Pierce 
V.  Strickland,  2  Story,  292;  Scruggs  v. 
Scruggs,  46  Mo.  271.  Compare  Jack- 
son r.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  15  Ind.  192. 


436 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  356 


may  be  permitted  to  amend  his  return  even  after  the  expira- 
tion of  his  official  term.^  The  return  as  amended,  ordinarily 
at  least,  relates  back  to  and  takes  the  j^lace  of  the  original  re- 
turn.^ 

§  356.  Service — By  whom. — A  summons,  being  directed  to 
a  certain  officer,  usually  a  sheriff,  constable  or  marshal,  should 
be  served  by  such  officer  or  his  deputy,  unless  the  statute  makes 
provision  for  service  by  some  one  else.^  It  is  frequently  pro- 
vided by  statute,  however,  that  a  third  person  may  serve  the 
summons  and  make  proof  of  the  service  by  affidavit.^  But 
service  of  original  process  by  a  party  to  a  suit  upon  his  adver- 
sary is  objectionable,  as  the  law  does  not  authorize  a  party  to 
execute  process  in  his  own  favor. ^     And  where  it  is  made  by 


^  Dwiggins  v.  Cook,  71  Ind.  579; 
Jeffries  v.  Rudloff,  73  Iowa,  60,  S.  C.5 
Am.  St.  R.  654;  Adams  v.  Robinson, 
1  Pick.  (Mass.)  461;  Lake's  Petition, 
15  R.  I.  628,  S.  C.  10  Atl.  R.  653 ;  John- 
son V.  Donnell,  15  111.  97;  Miles  v. 
Davis,  19  Mo.  408;  Keen  v.  Briggs,  46 
Me.  467;  Bean  v.  Thompson,  19  N.  H. 
290;  Palmer  v.  Thayer,  28  Conn.  237. 
Contra,  Armstrong  v.  Easton,  1  B. 
Mon.  (Ky.)  66;  Jessup  v.  Gragg,  12 
Ga.  261.  But  not  without  the  order  of 
the  court.  Beutell  v.  Oliver,  89  Ga.  246, 
15  S.  E.  R.  307.  See,  also,  Thatcher  v. 
Miller,  13  Mass.  270;  O'Conner  v. 
Wilson,  57  111.  226,  where  the  court 
refused  to  allow  the  amendment  be- 
cause of  lapse  of  time.  But,  compare 
Gilman  v.  Stetson,  16  Me.  124 ;  O'Brien 
V.  Gaslin,  20  Neb.  347;  Shenandoah 
Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ashby,  86  Va.  232. 

'Lake,  Petitioner,  15  R.  I.  628; 
Capehart  v.  Cunningham,  12  W.  Va. 
750;  People  v.  Ames,  35  N.  Y.  482,  S. 
C.  91  Am.  Dec.  64;  Hill  v.  Cunning- 
ham, 25  Texas,  25. 

3  Schwabacker  v.  Reilly,  2  Dill.  127 ; 
Kyle  V.  Kyle,  55  Ind.  387 ;  Grantier  v. 
Rosecrance,  27  Wis.  488;  Callaway  v. 


Harrold,  61  Ga.  Ill ;  Rudd  v.  Thomp- 
son, 22  Ark.  363 ;  Hickey  v.  Forristal, 
49  111.  255.  And  a  summons  directed 
to  a  sheriff  of  one  county  can  not,  it 
has  been  held,  be  served  by  the  dep- 
uty sheriff  of  another  county.  Bran- 
ner  v.  Chajaman,  11  Kan.  118.  As  to 
service  by  de  facto  officer,  see  Fowler 
V.  Bebee,  9  Mass.  231,  and  compare 
Putnam  v.  Man,  3  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  202, 
S.  C.  20  Am.  Dec.  686. 

*  See  New  Albany  &  Salem  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  Grooms,  9  Ind.  243 ;  Proctor  i>. Walk- 
er, 12  Ind.  660;  Rev.  St.  Ind. '81,  §481; 
Coffee  V.  Gates,  28  Ark.  43;  Peck  v. 
Strauss,  33  Cal.  678;  Myers  v.  Over- 
ton, 2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  344.  And  it 
has  been  held  that  where  the  writ  is 
directed  to  the  wrong  officer  but  served 
by  the  right  one,  the  proceedings  based 
thereon  are  not  necessarily  void.  Ware 
?j.  Todd,  1  Ala.  199;  Sawyer  u.  Price, 
6  Ala.  285. 

^Snydacker  v.  Brosse,  51  111.  357,  S. 
C.  99  Am.  Dec. 551 ;  Hemmer  iJ.Wolfer, 
124  111.  435,  S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  885 ;  Boy- 
kin  V.  Edwards,  21  Ala.  261 ;  Morton 
V.  Crane,  39  Mich.  526;  Clark  v.  Pat- 
terson, 58  Vt.  676. 


§  357  BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS.  437 

an  officer  it  should,  of  course,  be  by   the  pnjper  officer  of  the 
county  in  which  it  is  made,' unless  otherwise  provided  by  statute. 

§  357.  Personal  service. — In  the  absence  of  any  express 
statutory  provision  as  to  the  manner  and  mode  of  service,  per- 
sonal service  is  generally  essential.'^  So,  if  it  appears  from  a 
reasonable  construction  of  the  statute  that  personal  service  is 
contemplated,  no  other  can  be  substituted  over  the  objection 
of  the  defendant  properly  made.'^  Strictly,  personal  service  is 
service  by  reading  and  delivering  the  original  or  a  copy  of  the 
summons,  or  by  merely  delivering  such  copy,  to  the  defendant 
by  the  proper  officer  or  person  authorized  to  serve  the  writ, 
and  showing  the  original,  if  demanded.*  In  a  recent  Nebraska 
case  it  was  held  that  delivery  by  the  sheriff  of  two  copies  of  a 
summons  against  husband  and  wife  to  the  husband  alone,  and 
the  delivery  of  one  of  them  by  the  husband  to  the  wife,  in  the 
sight  of  the  sheriff,  did  not  constitute  personal  service  on  the 
wife.^  But  where  a  man,  in  order  to  avoid  service  of  sum- 
mons, dressed  in  his  wife's  clothes,  and  refused  to  take  the 
writ  in  his  hands,  laying  the  summons  on  his  shoulder  was 
held  a  good  and  sufficient  personal  service.^  Where,  how- 
ever, the  person  to  be  served  was  too  drunk  or  too  ill  to  un- 
derstand what  was  done  the  service  was  held  invalid.' 

§  358.   Service  by  leaving  copy  at  place  of  residence. — It  is 

^Wirtz  V.  Henry,  59  111.  109;  First  29;    Goggs  v.  Huntingtower,  12  Mees. 

Nat.  Bank  v.  Dwight,  85  Mich.  509;  &  W.  503;  Hart  v.  Gray,  3  Sumn.  (U. 

Ford  «.  Adams,  54  Ark.  137;  Lillard  S.)  339;    Wilson  v.  City  of  Trenton 

V.  Brannin  (Ky.),   16  S.  W.  R.  349;  (N.  J.),  16  L.  R.  A.  200,  and   note. 

Cresswell  v.  McCaig,  11  Neb.  222.  Reading  alone  has  been  held  suflirient 

*  Read  i'.  French,  28  N.Y.  285  ;  Rath-  under  the  Wisconsin  statute.     Green 
burnt'.  Acker,  18  Barb.  393;    Brydolf  r.  State,  56  Wis.  583. 

V.  Wolf,  32  Iowa,  509;  Wilson  v.  City  ^Holliday   r.  Brown,  50  N.  W.  R. 

of  Trenton  (N.  J.),  16  L.  R.  A.  200,  1042.    To  same  effect  is  Williams  v. 

and  note;    Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Valkenburg,  16  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

Smith,  78  111.  96;  St.  Louis  v.  Goebel,  144. 

32  Mo.  295;    Sleeper  v.  Free  Baptist  "Martin  r.  Raflin,  21  N.  Y.  S.  1043. 

Ass'n,  58  N.  H.  27.  See,  also,  Borden  v.  Borden,  63  AVis. 

«  Bond  r.  AVhitfield,  28  Ga.  537.  374 ;  People  r.  Bernal,  43  Cal.  385. 

*  See  Simmons  r.  Gardiner,  6  R.  I.  ^Murphy  r.  Loos,  104  111.  514;  Peo- 
255;    Smith  r.  Kerr,  49  Hun  (N.  Y.),  pie  v.  Judge,  38  Mich.  310. 


438  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  358 

frequently  provided  that  a  summons  may  also  be  served  by 
leaving  a  copy  at  the  last  or  usual  abode,  or  place  of  residence 
of  the  defendant.  This  is  usually  called  substituted  service,^ 
although  it  is  sometimes  called  personal  service  as  distinguished 
from  service  by  publication. ^  Under  such  a  statute  it  is  not 
sufficient  to  leave  a  copy  at  the  defendant's  place  of  business.^ 
The  phrase,  "last  or  usual  place  of  residence"  has  been  con- 
strued as  meaning  the  residence  into  which  the  defendant, 
while  still  a  resident  of  the  State,  has  moved  in  the  State,  last 
before  the  service  of  process.*  If  the  defendant  has  established 
himself  in  business  in  another  State  and  become  a  citizen 
thereof,  with  the  intention  of  making  such  place  his  perma- 
nent residence  and  removing  his  family  there  when  conven- 
ient, leaving  a  copy  of  a  summons  with  a  member  of  his  family 
at  his  old  residence  is  not  a  good  service  upon  him,  under  a 
statute  providing  that  a  copy  may  be  left  with  a  member  of 
the  defendant's  family  at  his  usual  place  of  residence.^  It  is 
sometimes  provided  that  this  kind  of  service  can  be  resorted 
to  only  when  the  party  to  be  served  can  not  be  found,  so  that 
personal  service  would  be  impracticable,'^  and  in  such  cases  the 
return  should  show  that  he  could  not  be  found.''     In  a  case  de- 

'  Chittenden  v.  Hobbs,  9  Iowa,  417.  place  of  abode,  see  Lee  v.  Macfee,  45 

2  Dunkle  i'.  Elston,  71  Ind.  585.  Minn.    33,   and     compare  White     v. 

3  Lambert  w.  Sample,  25  Ohio  St.  336;  Primm,  36  111.  416.  See,  generally, 
Winchester  v.  Cox,  3  Green  (Iowa),  Earl  v.  McVeigh,  91  TJ.  S.  503;  Hyslop 
575;  McConkey  v.  McCraney,  71  Wis.  v.  Hoppock,  5  Ben.  (U.  S.)  447;  Har- 
576;  Hewitt  t-.Weatherby,  57  Mo.  276.  rison  v.  Farrington,  35  N.  J.  Eq.4; 
See,  also,  Arnault  i;.  St.  Julien,  21  La.  Succession  of  McCalop,  10  La.  Ann. 
Ann.  630;  Adams  v.  Abram,  38  Mich.  224;  Laney  v.  Garbee,  105  Mo.  355. 
302;  Kibbe  v.  Benson,  17  Wall.  (U.  ^Schlawig  v.  De  Peyster,  83  la.  323, 
S.)  624.  S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  785,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 

*  Sturgis  'v.  Fay,   16  Ind.  429.     Al-  843.    See,  also.  Earl  v.  McVeigh,  91  U. 

though  a  person  has  disappeared  from  S.  503;    Piggott  v.  Snell,  59  111.  106; 

his  home,  but  without  expressing  any  Wolff  v.  Shenandoah  National  Bank 

intention  not  to  return,  process  left  (Iowa),  50  N.  W.  R.  561. 

with  his  wife   at  his  usual   place  of  «  Davis  v.  Burt,  7  Iowa,  56 ;  Chitten- 

abode,  nine  days  after  his  disappear-  den  v.  Hobbs,  9  Iowa,  417;  Trullenger 

ance,  is  sufficient  to  give  the  court  ju-  v.  Todd,  5  Ore.  36. 

risdiction.     Botna  Valley  State  Bank  '  Matteson  v.  Smith,  37  Wis.  333; 

V.  Silver  City  Bank  (Iowa),  54  N.  W.  Settlemier  v.  Sullivan,  97  U.  S.  444. 
R.  472.     As  to  boarding-house  being 


§  358  BRINGING    THE    ACTION I'liOCESS.  439 

cided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  the  sheriff's 
return  showed  that  the  summons  was  served  by  delivering  it 
to  the  wife  of  the  defendant  at  his  usual  place  of  abode,  but 
contained  no  statement  that  he  could  not  be  found.  Judgment 
was  rendered  against  him  at  the  next  term,  reciting  that  "the 
defendant,  although  duly  served  with  process,  came  not,  but 
made  default."  A  majority  of  the  court  held  that  no  jurisdic- 
tion was  acquired  by  such  service,  and  that  the  judgment  was 
void.^  We  are  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  this  decision  is 
unsound  and  contrary  to  the  general  rule  governing  collateral 
attacks.^  Of  course,  if  there  is  no  provision  made  for  any  such 
service,  and  it  is  wholly  unauthorized,  a  different  rule  would 
apply  from  that  for  which  we  here  contend.  In  such  a  case 
there  is  not  merely  an  irregularity  in  the  service;  there  is  no 
service  at  all,  and,  if  the  record  shows  that  fact,  it  may  well 
be  held  that  a  judgment  based  thereon  is  void  and  subject  to 
collateral  attack.^  Many  of  the  statutes  not  only  provide  that 
the  summons  shall  be  left  at  the  defendant's  last  and  usual 
place  of  residence  or  abode,  but  also  that  it  must  be  left  with 
some  member  of  his  family  or  some  suitable  person  over  a 
specified  age.  Such  provisions  should  be  carefully  complied 
with,  and  the  return  should  show  all  the  necessary  facts.* 

^Settlemier  v.  Sullivan,  97  U.  S.  44-1.  lateral   attack   in   sueli    a   case.     See 

'  This  was  a  collateral  attack  upon  a  Taylor  r.Webb,  54  ^liss.  36 ;  Bonsall  v. 

judgment  and  the  lower  court  had  ex-  Isett,  14  Iowa,  309 ;  Freeman  r.  Karr, 

pressly  found  that  process  was  duly  34  111.  App.  646;    Steinam  i;.  Strauss, 

served.      The  only    irregularity  was  18  N.Y.  Supp.  48;  Hemmerv.  Wolfer, 

that  the  return  of  the  sheriff  failed  to  124  111.  435;    Ford  v.  Delta,  etc.,  Co., 

show  that  the  defendant  could  not  be  43  Fed.  R.  181. 

found.  The  presumption,  even  in  the  ^  Hobby  r.  Bunch,  83  Ga.  1,  S.  C.  20 
absence  of  an  express  finding,  was  Am.  St.  R.  301,  305. 
that  all  necessary  steps  had  been  *  ^lack  r.  Brown,  73111.  295;  Mullina 
taken  in  order  to  acquire  jurisdiction,  v.  Sparks,  43  Miss.  129 ;  Cole  v.  Hocha,  i 
It  did  not  necessarily  follow  because  21  La.  Ann.  613;  Von  Roy  r.  Black- 
the  return  was  silent  as  to  some  of  the  man,  3  Woods  (TJ.  S.),  98 ;  Hammond 
steps  that  they  had  not  been  taken,  v.  Olive,  44  Miss.  543;  Wilkinson  t\ 
and  the  court  expressly  found  that  Bayley,  71  AVis.  131 ;  Wheeler  r.  Wil- 
they  had  been  taken.  It  seems  clear  kins,  19  Mich.  78.  Of  course  the  ser- 
to  us  that  the  three  dissenting  judges  vice  can  not  be  made  upon  the  plaint- 
were  undoubtedly  right  in  holding  iff  himself,  although  he  is  a  member 
that  there  could  be  no  successful  col-  of  the  defendant's  family.     Hemmer 


440 


TTIK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§359 


§  359.  Service  on  corporations. — At  common  law  service  on 
the  officers  of  a  domestic  corporation  was  held  to  be  service  on 
the  corporation/  but  jurisdiction  over  a  foreign  corporation 
could  not  be  thus  acquired.^  The  entire  subject  of  service  on 
corporations,  whether  foreign  or  domestic,  is  now  regulated 
largely  by  statute.  Legislative  enactments  providing  tliat  if  a 
foreign  corporation  does  business  in  the  State  service  may  be 
had  upon  its  managing  agent  or  head  officer  in  the  State  in  tiie 
same  manner  as  in  case  of  a  domestic  corporation  are  consti- 
tutional.-"^  The  service  should  be  made  upon  the  agent  desig- 
nated by  the  statute,  and  the  return  should  show  his  official 
position  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it  clear  that  the  service 
was  upon  the  officer  or  agent  designated  by  the  statute,  and 
that  he  was  served  in  his  official  or  representative  character.* 
So  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  statute  permits  service  upon 
a  subordinate  officer  only  when  the  president  or  highest  officer 
is  absent  or  a  non-resident,  the  return  of  service  upon  the  sub- 
ordinate officer  should  show  the  absence  or  non-residence  of 


«.  Wolfer,  124  111.  435,  S.  C.  11  N.  E. 
B.  885. 

'  Merriwether  v.  Bank,  Dud.  (S. 
Car.)  36;  McQueen  v.  Middletown 
Mfg.  Co.,  16  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  5;  Hart- 
ford City  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Carrugi,  41 
Ga.  660;  Heltzell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  77  Mo.  315;    1  Tidd's  Pr.,  121. 

'  Barnett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
4Hun(N.Y.),114;  Peckham  u.  North 
Parish,  16  Pick.  (Mass.)  274.  See, 
also,  Middough  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  520. 

3  Moulin  V.  Ins.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  L.  222; 
Nat.  Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Hunting- 
Ion,  129  Mass.  444;  Gibson  v.  Manu- 
facturers, etc.,  Co.,  144  Mass.  81 ;  Rail- 
road Co.  V.  Harris,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
65,  81;  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  168;  Lafayette  Ins.  Co,  v.  French, 
18  How.  (U.  S.)  404;  Hagerman  v. 
Empire  State  Co.,  97  Pa.  St.  534 ;  Mc- 
Nichol  V.  United  States  Mercantile 
Hep.   Agency,  74   Mo.  457;    Mineral 


Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Keep,  22  111.  9,  S. 
C.  74  Am.  Dec.  124;  Hannibal,  etc., 
R.  R.  V.  Crane,  102  111.  249.  And,  as 
held  in  many  of  the  cases  just  cited, 
the  legislature  may  require  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  resident  agent  to  ac- 
cept service  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  transacting  business  in  the  State. 

*  Jones  V.  Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  88  N. 
Car.  499;  Powder  Co.  v.  Oakdale,  etc., 
Co.,  14  Phila.  (Pa.)  166;  Oxford  Iron 
Co.  V.  Spradley,  42  Ala.  24;  O'Brien 
V.  Shaw's  Flat,  10  Cal.  343;  Great 
West.  Mining  Co.  v.  Woodmas,  etc., 
Co.,  12  Col.  46,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R. 
204 ;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R'y  Co.  v.  Hunt, 
39  Mich.  469;  Dickerson  v.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  43  Kan.  702,  S.  C. 
23  Pac.  R.  936;  Plemmons  v.  So.  Imp. 
Co.,  108  N.  Car.  614,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R. 
188 ;  Amy  v.  Watertown,  130  U.  S.  301, 
S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  530.  In  a  recent 
case  it  was  held  that  service  upon  the 
deputy  secretary  of  State  was  insuflB- 


§  350 


BRiX(aN(;  Tin-:  a(tk)N' — process. 


441 


the  president.^  It  is  usually  provided  that  service  shall  be 
made  upon  the  "general  managing  agent"  or  "head  officer" 
in  the  State,  and  it  is  sometimes  diHicult  to  determine  who  is 
such  "managing  agent"  or  "head  officer."  A  general  super- 
intendent of  a  railroad  company  has  been  held  to  be  its  man- 
aging agent  under  such  a  statute. ^  So  has  a  local  express 
agent  ■'^  and  an  insurance  agent  having  full  charge  of  the  com- 
pany's business;*  but  ticket  sellers/'^  baggage -masters,*^  and 
agents  to  solicit  insurance,  without  authority  to  consummate 
it,'  have  been  held  not  to  be  general  managing  agents.^  Much 
depends  upon  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case,  and 
the  only  general  rule  that  can  be  laid  down  upon  the  subject 


cient  under  a  statute  providing  for 
service  upon  the  secretary  of  State  as 
agent  of  foreign  corporations.  Lonkey 
V.  Keyes  Silver  Mining  Co.  (Nev.),  17 
L.  R.  A.  351. 

'  St.  Louis,  Alton  &  T.  H.  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  Dorsey,  47  111.  288;  Miller  r.  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  431 ; 
Toledo,  W.  &  W.  R'y  Co.  v.  Owen,  43 
Ind.  405;  Hoen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  561.  Compare  Comet 
Consolidated  Min.  Co.  v.  Frost,  15 
Col.  310,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  506 ;  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Daughtr^-,  138 
U.  S.  298,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  306. 

'Commerce  Bank  v.  Rutland,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  10  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  1.  So 
has  a  general  passenger  agent.  Tuch- 
band  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  115 
N.  Y.  437.  But  compare  Maxwell  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 
286. 

'  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  St.  John,  17 
Ohio  St.  641. 

*  Bain  v.  Globe  Ins.  Co.,  9  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  448. 

*Doty  !'.  Mich.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  8 
Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  427;  Mackereth  v. 
Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  L.  R.,  8  Exch. 
149.  See,  how'ever.  Smith  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa,  512 ;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Collier,  62  Texas,  318. 


*  Flynn  v.  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.» 
6  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  308. 

'Parke  v.  Com.  Ins.  Co.,  44  Pa.  St. 
422;  Connors  v.  Prudential  Ins.  Co., 
11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  50. 

^  Other  cases  showing  who  are  and 
who  are  not  regarded  as  managing 
agents,  are  cited  and  reviewed  in  the 
note  to  Hampson  v.  Weare,  66  Am. 
Dec.  116,  120.  See,  also,  Eddy  v.  La- 
fayette, 49  Fed.  R.  807 ;  Goltschalk  Co. 
V.  Distilling,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  681 ; 
Burgess  v.  Aultman,  80  Wis.  292;  Chi- 
cago, B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Manning, 
23  Neb.  552,  S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  462; 
Dillard  v.  Central  Va.  Iron  Co.,  82  Va. 
734,  S.  C.  1  S.  E.  R.  124;  BerHn  Iron 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Norton,  51  N.  J.  L.  442, 
S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  1079;  New  Albany  & 
S.  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Grooms,  9  Ind.  243; 
Rehm  r.  German  Ins.  etc.,  Co.,  125 
Ind.  135,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  173;  Win- 
slow  V.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  Co.,  21  N. 
Y.  S.  R.  87 ;  Taylor  v.  Granite,  etc., 
Ass'n,  136  N.  Y.  343,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R. 
992;  Southwestern  ^lut.  Ben.  Ass'n  v. 
Swenson,  49  Kan.  449,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R. 
405 ;  Winney  v.  Sandwich,  etc.,  Co.,  84 
Iowa,  — ,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  565;  Van 
Dresser  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Fed. 
R.  202 ;  Wilson  v.  Martin-Wilson,  etc.^ 
Co.,  149  Mass.  24, 


442  TlIK    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  360 

is  that  service,  under  such  statutes,  must  be  made  upon  a  head 
officer  or  agent  who  has  general  supervision  of  the  affairs  of 
the  corporation,  and  whose  knowledge  is  that  of  the  corpora- 
tion.^ Service  can  not  be  had  upon  an  officer  or  agent  of  a 
foreign  corporation  which  has  no  office  and  transacts  no  busi- 
ness within  the  State,  while  such  officer  is  casually  in  the 
State  upon  his  own  private  business.^ 

§  360.  Service  on  partners.— Where  partners  are  sued,  ser- 
vice should  be  had  upon  all  the  partners,  if  possible,  in  order 
to  obtain  a  personal  judgment  enforceable  against  their  indi- 
vidual property;  but  the  legislature  may  authorize  judgment 
to  be  entered  against  a  partnership  upon  service  on  any  one  or 
more  of  the  partners,  enforceable  against  the  partnership  prop- 
erty and  the  individual  property  of  the  partners  who  are  prop- 
erly served.^  It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  a  personal  judgment 
can  be  rendered  against  a  non-resident  partner,  who  is  not 
served  and  who  does  not  appear,  so  as  to  be  enforceable  against 
his  individual  property,  and  the  weight  of  authority  seems  to 
be  to  the  effect  that  statutes  attempting  to  authorize  a  personal 

'  Newby  v.  Colt's  Pat.,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  S.  350,  S.  C.  1  Sup.  Ct.  R.  354 ;  Phillips 

R.,  7  Q.  B.  293 ;    Weight  v.  Liverpool,  v.  Library  Co.,  141  Pa.  St.  462,  S.  C.  21 

etc.,  Ins.    Co.,    30    La.    Ann.    1186;  Atl.  R.  640 ;  Galveston  City  R.  R.  Co. 

Upper  Miss.  Transp.  Co.  v.  Whittaker,  v.  Hook,  40  111.  App.  547.     Compare 

16AVis.  220;    Emerson  v.  Auburn,  13  Klopp  ?;.  Creston  City,  etc.,  Co.(Neb.), 

Hun  (N.  Y.),  150;  Waco  v.  Wheeler,  52  N.  W.  R.  819;    Shickle,  etc.,  Iron 

59  Texas,  554;    Blanc  v.  Paymaster  Co.    v.   Wiley    Construction    Co.,   61 

Mining  Co.,  95  Cal.  524,  S.  C.  29  Am.  Mich.  226,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  571. 
St.  R.  149   (service  on   clerk  insuffi-        =*  Sugg  v.  Thornton,  132  U.  S.  524,  S. 

cient) ;     Great  West   Mining  Co.   v.  C.  10  Supt.  Ct.  R.  163;  Patten  v.  Cun- 

Woodmas,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Col.  46,  S.  C.  nington,   63  Texas,  666;    Burnett  v. 

13  Am.  St.  R.  204  (service  on  foreman  Sullivan,  58  Texas,  535;    Johnson  v. 

insufficient)  ;  Barrett  v.  Am.  Tel.,  etc.,  Lough,  22  Minn.  203 ;  Harker  v.  Brink, 

Co.  (N.  Y.),  34  N.  E.  R.  289  (service  24  N.  J.  L.  333;  Winters  v.  Means,  25 

on  general  superintendent  sufficient) ;  Neb.  241,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  489; 

Taylor  v.  Granite,  etc.,  Ass'n,  136  N.  Gunzbergv.  Miller,  39  Mich.  80.     See, 

Y.  343,  S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  992  (service  also,  Parker  v.  Danforth,  16  Mass.  299 ; 

on  attorney  insufficient) .  Nixon  v.  Downey,42  Iowa,  78 ;  Demoss 

'  Fitzgerald  &  Mallory  Const.  Co.  v.  v.  Brewster,    12  Miss.  661  ;  Anderson 

Fitzgerald,  137  U.  S.  98,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  v.  Arnette,  27  La.  Ann.  237. 
Ct.  R.  36,  39;    St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U. 


§  301 


BKIN(iIN(i    TlIK    ACTION i'ltOCKSS. 


443 


judgment  and  execution  against  sucli  a  partner  and  his  indi- 
vidual property  are  unconstitutional.^ 

§361.  Service  on  infants. — Except  where  otherwise  pro- 
vided, personal  service  should  he  made  upon  infants  in  the 
same  manner  as  upon  adults."'^  An  infant  is  not  hound  hy  a 
waiver  of  such  service  either  hy  himself  or  his  guardian.^  In 
some  States  it  is  also  provided  that  the  father,  mother,  or 
guardian  of  the  infant  must  also  be  served  with  process.* 
Where  there  has  been  no  personal  service  upon  an  infant  a 
judgment  as  against  him  is  generally  considered  voidable,^  al- 
though there  are  some  authorities  which  hold  it  absolutely 
void.^ 


>  Tay  V.  Hawley,  39  Cal.  93 ;  Braen 
V.  Bokee,  4  Denio  (N.  Y.),  56,  S.  C.  47 
Am.  Dec.  239;    Wood  v.  Watkinson, 

17  Conn.  500,  S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  502, 
and  note ;  Mason  v.  Eldred,  0  "Wall. 
(U.  S.)  231;  United  States  v.  Ameri- 
can Bell  Telephone  Co.,  29  Fed.  R. 
17 ;  Oakley  v.  Aspinwall,  4  N.  Y.  514 ; 
Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College,  17 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  527.  Compare  Whit- 
more  V.  Shiverick,  3  Nev.  288;  Gui- 
mond  V.  Nast,  44  Texas,  114;  Kidd  v. 
Brown,  2  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  20;  Swift 
V.  Stark,  2  Ore.  97. 

'  Abdil  V.  Abdil,  26  Ind.  287 ;  Hough 
V.  Canby.  8  Blackf.  (Ind.)  301 ;  Cole- 
man V.  Coleman,  3  Dana  (Ky.),  898, 
S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec.  86;  Larkins  r.  Bul- 
lard,  88N.  Car.  35;  Helms  r.  Chad- 
bourne,  45  Wis.  60;  Hickenbotham  v. 
Blackledge,  54  111.  316 ;  Galpin  v.  Page, 

18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  350;  Johnston  v.  San 
Francisco  Savings  Ass'n,  63  Cal.  554; 
Baumgartner  v.  Guessfield,  38  Mo.  36. 

'  Rol)bins  r.  Robbins,  2  Ind.  74;  De 
La  Hunt  r.  Ilolderbaugh,  58  Ind.  285; 
Ingersoll  r.  Mangam,  84  N.  Y.  622; 
Wheeler  r.  Ahrenbeak,  54  Texas,  535; 
Genobles  r.  West,  23  So.  Car.  154; 
Clark  V-  Thompson,  47  111.  25,  S.  C.  95 


Am.  Dec.  457,  and  note;  Donlin  v. 
Hettinger,  57  111.  348 ;  Bonnell  v.  Holt, 
89  111.  71 ;  Hawes  on  Juris.,  §  321. 

*  Ingersoll  v.  Ingersoll,  42  Miss.  155 ; 
Johnson  v.  McCabe,  42  Miss.  255; 
Billups  i\  Brander,  56  Miss.  495;  Bel- 
lamy r.  Guhl,  62  How.  Pr.(N.  Y.)  460; 
Cox  V.  Story,  80  Ky.  64 ;  :\IcDermott 
V.  Thompson,  29  Fla.  299,  S.  C.  10  So. 
R.  584;  Moulton  v.  Moulton,  47  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  696;  Dohms  v.  Mann,  76  la. 
723 ;  Stearns  v.  Wallace,  58  N.  H.  228 ; 
Faust  V.  Faust,  31  So.  Car.  576 ;  Gay 
V.  Grant,  101  N.  Car.  206. 

*  Robb  V.  Lessee  of  Irwin,  15  Ohio, 
689;  McAnear  v.  Epperson,  54  Texas, 
220,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  625;  Preston  v. 
Dunn,  25  Ala.  507 ;  Larkins  v.  Bullard, 
88  N.  Car.  35;  Gronfier  r.  Puymirol, 
19  Cal.  629;  Bernecker  v.  Miller,  44 
Mo.  102 ;  Frierson  v.  Travis,  39  Ala. 
150.  See,  also,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency. 
of  Law,  690,  note. 

®  Insurance  Co.  v.  Bangs,  103  U.  S. 
435;  AVhitney  v.  Porter.  23  111.  445; 
Piercy  ('.  Piercy,  5  W.  Va.  199;  Me- 
Daniel  v.  Correll,  19  111.  226,  S.  C.  68 
Am.  Dec.  587;  Allsmiller  r.  Freutch- 
enicht,  86  Ky.  198,  S.  C.  5  S.W.  R.  746. 


444 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§362 


§  362.    Service  l)y  publication. — It  is  provided  by  statute  in 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  States,  that  in  certain  classes  of  cases 
notice  of  the  pendency  of  an  action   may  be  given  by  publica- 
tion in  a  newspaper.     Service  of  process  in  this  mode  is  called 
constructive  service.     It  is  generally  authorized  where  the  de- 
fendant has  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  as  in 
cases  of  attachment,  and  suits  to  foreclose  mortgages,  or  to  de- 
termine and  quiet  title  to  land  within  the  State,  and  the  de- 
fendant is  a  non-resident  or  has  absconded,  making  it  impos- 
sible to  get  personal  service  upon  him.^     It  is  also  used  exten- 
sively in  divorce  proceedings. ^     Statutes  providing  for  service 
by  publication,  in  all  such  cases  have  been  held  constitutional.^ 
But  a  strictly  personal  judgment  can  not  be  rendered  upon 
such   service.*     And  in   a  recent  case,   it  was  expressly  held 
that  a   statute  assuming  to  authorize  service  by    publication 
upon  resident  defendants  in  actions   strictly  in  personam,  is 
unconstitutional.^ 


»  See  Sexton  v.  Rhames,  13  Wis.  99; 
Bobb  V.  Woodward,  42  Mo.  482 ;  Peo- 
ple V.  Huber,  20  Cal.  81 ;  Lawrence  v. 
State,  30  Ark.  719;  Lovejoy  v.  Lunt, 
48  Me.  377;  Cook  v.  Farren,  34  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  95. 

2  See  Pomeroy  v.  Betts,  31  Mo.  419; 
Jarvis  v.  Barrett,  14  Wis.  591 ;  Wilson 
V.  Ladd,  49  Me.  73 ;  Estate  of  Newman, 
75  Cal.  213,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  146,  and 
note. 

'  Arndt  v.  Griggs,  134  U.  S.  316,  S. 
C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  557;  Angell  v.  An- 
gell,  14  R.  I.  541 ;  Mason  v.  Messen- 
ger, 17  Iowa,  261 ;  Palmer  v.  McCor- 
mick,   28  Fed.  R.  541;    Shepherd  v. 

Ware,  46  Minn.  174,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St. 

R.  212;  Perkins  v.  Wakeham,  86  Cal. 

580,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  67 ;  Hogle 

V.  Mott,  62  Vt.  255,  S.  C.  22  Am.  St. 

Rep.  106;  Wunstel  v.  Landry,  39  La. 

Ann.  312,  S.  C.  1  So.  Rep.  893;  Dillon 

V.  Heller,  39  Kan.  599,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R. 

693 ;    Essig  v.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239,  S. 

C.  21  N.  E.  R.  1090;  Mellen  v.  Iron 


Works,  131  U.  S.  352,  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct. 
Rep.  781;  Watson  ».  Ulbrich,  18  Neb. 
186,  S.  C.  24  N.  W.  R.  732.  Perhaps 
it  would  be  better  to  say  that  they  are 
not  necessarily  unconstitutional. 

*  Sowders  v.  Edmunds,  76  Ind.  123 ; 
Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714;  Cloyd 
V.  Trotter,  118  111.  391;  Lydiard  v. 
Chute,  45  Minn.  277;  Bank  v.  Carter, 
88  Tenn.  279;  Belcher  v.  Chambers, 
53  Cal.  635 ;  Dillon  v.  Heller,  39  Kan. 
599 ;  Augusta  Savings  Bank  v.  Stelhng, 
31  So.  Car.  360 ;  York  v.  State,  73  Tex. 
651;  Cooper  v.  Smith,  25  Iowa,  269; 
Bartlett  v.  Spicer,  75  N.  Y.  528 ;  Hart 
V.  Sansom,  110  U.  S.  151 ;  Denny  v. 
Ashley,  12  Col.  165;  Dearingt;.  Bank, 
5  Ga.  497,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  300,  and 
note  to  Flint  River  Steamboat  Co.  v. 
Foster,  48  Am.  Dec.  248,  273. 

^Bardwell  v.  Collins,  44  Minn.  97, 
S.  C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  547.  This  was  a 
suit  to  foreclose  a  mortgage,  yet  it  was 
held  a  proceeding  in  personam. 


§363 


BRINGING    THK    ACTION I'KOCKSS. 


445 


§  363.  Statute  niiist  be  strictly  toUowecl. — As  service  l.y 
publication  is  a  statutory  mode  of  service,  tlie  provisions  and 
requirements  of  the  statute  must  be  strictly  complied  with.^ 
But  defects  that  might  be  fatal  upon  a  direct  attack  will  not 
always  render  a  judgment  based  upon  such  service  absolutely 
void  when  attacked  collaterally.'^  Thus  it  has  been  lield  that 
a  judgment  is  not  subject  to  collateral  attack  because  the  affi- 
davit for  publication  omitted  the  name  of  the  plaintiff  and  the 
usual  caption,  when  properly  filed  in  the  cause. ^  So,  where 
the  affidavit  simply  alleged  non-residence  and  failed  to  ex- 
pressly state  that  the  defendant  was  a  necessary  party. ^  So, 
too,  where  the  affidavit  states  facts  showing  the  existence  of 
the  statutory  grounds  for  publication,  and  not  mere  opinions  or 
conclusions  of  law,  but  states  them  too  generally.'^  But  in 
other  cases,  many  of  which  can  not  easily  be  distinguished 
from  some  of  those  just  cited,  the  defects  or  omissions  in  the 
affidavit  were  held  sufficient  to  make  the  judgment  void  and 
subject  to  collateral  attack.''     The  same  conflict  exists  among 


>  Likens  v.  McCormiek,  39  Wis.  313 ; 
Scorpion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marsano,  10  Xev. 
370;  Allen  v.  Bankston,  33  Ark.  740; 
Hartley  v.  Boynton,  17  Fed.  R.  873 ; 
Beckett  v.  Cuenin,  15  Col.  281,  S.  C.  22 
Am.  St.  R.  399,  and  note;  Byrnes  v. 
Sampson,  74  Texas,  79;  Cassidy  v. 
AVoodward,  77  Iowa,  354.  But  see 
Quarl  V.  Abbett,  102  Ind.  233;  3  Blk. 
Com.  283,  444. 

»  See  Ogden  v.  Walters,  12  Kan.  2S2; 
Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714;  Bel- 
mont V.  Cornen,  82  N.  Y.  256 ;  Lawson 
r.  Moorman,  85  Va.  880;  Hardy  v. 
Beaty,  84  Texas,  562,  S.  C.  31  Am.  St. 
R.  80,  and  cases  cited  in  the  following 
notes. 

'  Harris  r.  Lester,  80  111.  307,311; 
Palmer  v.  McCormiek,  30  Fed.  R.  82. 

*Carrico  v.  Tarwater,  103  Ind.  86. 
See,  also,  Dowell  v.  Lahr,  97  Ind.  146, 
151 ;  Essig  V.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239,  241, 
S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  1090. 


*  Britten  v.  Larson,  23  Neb.  806,  S. 
C.  37  N.  W.  R.  681 ;  Little  v.  Cham- 
bers, 27  Iowa,  522, 526 ;  Howe  Machine 
Co.  V.  Pettibone,  74  N.  Y.  68;  Harri- 
son V.  Beard,  30  Kan.  532 ;  Barton  v. 
Sanders,  16  Ore.  51,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R. 
921 ;  Ogden  v.  Walters,  12  Kan.  282, 
293;  Shippen  v.  Kimball,  47  Kan.  173, 
S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  813;  Carr's  Adm'r  v. 
Carr  (Ky.),  18  S.  W.  R.  453. 

•■'Nelson  v.  Ronntree,  23  Wis.  367; 
Harris  r.  Claflin.  36  Kan.  543,  S.  C.  13 
Pac.  R.  8.30;  Atkins  r.  Atkins,  9  Neb. 
191;  Harrington  v.  Loomis,  10  Minn. 
366;  Alderson  v.  Marshall,  7  Mont. 
288,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  576;  Drj-sdale  r. 
Biloxi  Canning  Co.,  67  Miss.  534,  S. 
C.  7  So.  R.  541 ;  Charles  v.  Morrow.  99 
Mo.  6.38,  S.  C.  12  S.  AV.  R.  903;  Ste- 
gall  r.  Huff,  54  Tex.  193;  Hull  v.  Hull, 
35  W.  Va.  155,  S.  C.  29  Am.  St.  R. 
800. 


446 


THE    WOFvK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§364 


the  authorities  as  to  the  effect  of  errors,  and  omissions  in  the 
order  for  publication^  and  in  the  notice  itself.^ 

§  364.  Affidavit  for  publiejition. — It  is  generally  provided 
that  an  affidavit  should  first  be  filed  as  an  essential  requisite 
to  a  valid  notice  by  publication,  stating  the  facts  required  by 
statute  to  authorize  service  by  publication.^  Thus,  it  has  been, 
held  that  it  should  show  the  existence  and  nature  of  the  cause 
of  action,*  that  the  defendant  is  a  non-resident,^  and,  under 
some  statutes,  that,  although  the  plaintiff  had  used  due  dili- 
gence in  attempting  to  find  him,  he  could  not  be  found  within 
the  State, ^  that  he  has  property  within  the  State,''  and  all  other 


^  Cases  in  which  the  error  or  defect 
was  held  not  to  be  fatal  on  collateral 
attack:  Cason  v.  Cason,  31  Miss. 
578 ;  Ward  v.  Lowndes,  96  N.  Car.  367 ; 
Anderson  v.  Goff,  72  Cal.  65;  Blight's 
Heirs  v.  Banks,  6  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
192,  S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  136;  Kane  v. 
McCown,  55  Mo.  181  (but  compare 
Otis  V.  Epperson,  88  Mo.  131)  ;  Will- 
iams V.  Williams,  125  Ind.  156,  S.  C. 
25  N.  E.  R.  176.  Cases  in  which  the 
error  or  defect  was  held  to  render  the 
judgment  absolutely  void:  Eastman 
V.  Linn,  26  Minn.  215 ;  Brown  v.  Cor- 
bin,  40  Minn.  508,  S.  C.  42  N.  W.  R. 
481 ;  Russell  v.  Gilson,  36  Minn.  366, 
S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  692;  Bardsley  v. 
Hines,  33  la.  157;  Royer  v.  Foster,  62 
Iowa,  321,  S.  C.  17  N.W.  R.516;  Odell 
V.  Campbell,  9  Ore.  298. 

^  Held  not  fatal  on  collateral  attack 
in  Woodbury  v.  Maguire,  42  Iowa,  339 ; 
Dahms  v.  Alston,  72  Iowa,  411,  S.  C. 
34  X.  W.  R.  182;  Lane  v.  Innes,  43 
Minn.  137,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  4;  Mc- 
Mullen  V.  State,  105  Ind.  334,  S.  C.  4 
N.  E.  R.  903;  Morgan  v.  Woods,  33 
Ind.  23 ;  Loring  v.  Binney,  38  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  152;Johnson  v.  Gage,  57  Mo. 
160;  Moore  v.  Neil,  39  111.  256,  S.  C. 
89  Am.  Dec.  303;  Jasper  Co.  v.  Wad- 
low,  82  Mo.  172.     Held  fatal  upon  col- 


lateral attack  in  Wescott  v.  Archer,  12 
Neb.  345,  S.  C.  11  N.  W.  R.  491 ;  Stew- 
art V.  Anderson,  70  Texas,  588,  S.  C.  8 
S.  W.  R.  295 ;  Frazier  r.  Miles,  10  Neb, 
109,  S.  C.  4  N.  W.  R.  930;  Brownfleld 
V.Dyer,  7  Bush.  (Ky.)  505;  Bird  v. 
Norquist,  46  Minn.  318,  S.  C.  48  N.  W. 
R. 1132. 

3  See  Schell  v.  Leland,  45  Mo.  289; 
Bardsley  v.  Hines,  33  Iowa,  157;  Mer- 
rill V.  Montgomery,  25  Mich.  73 ;  Beck- 
ett V.  Cuenin,  15  Col.  281,  S.  C.  22  Am. 
St.  R.  399. 

■•Claypool  V.  Houston,  12  Kan.  324; 
Fontaine  v.  Houston,  58  Ind.  316;  At- 
kins V.  Atkins,  9  Neb.  191 ;  Slocum  v. 
Slocum,  17  Wis.  150;  Forbes  v.  Hyde, 
31  Cal.  342. 

*  Fontaine  v.  Houston,  58  Ind.  316; 
Bixby  V.  Smith,  49  How.  Pr.(N.Y.)50, 

^Easterbrook  v.  Easterbrook,  64 
Barb.(N.Y.)  421 ;  McCracken  v.  Flan- 
agan, 127  N.  Y.  493,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St. 
R.  481 ;  Bixby  v.  Smith,  49  How.  Pr. 
(N.Y.)50 ;  Mackubin  v.  Smith,  5 Minn. 
367;  Chase  V.  Kaynor,  78  Iowa,  449,  S. 
C.  43  N.  W.  Rep.  269;  McDonald  v. 
Cooper,  32  Fed.  R.  745. 

'Spiers  v.  Halstead,  71  N.  Car.  209; 
Manning  v.  Heady,  64  Wis.  630,  S.  C. 
25  N.  W.  R.  1. 


§  365  BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS.  447 

jurisdictional  facts  required  Ijy  statute'  But,  as  already  stated, 
merely  formal  defects  or  irregularities  will  not  necessarily  ren- 
der the  allidavit  subject  to  collateral  attack;-  and  it  has  been 
held  that  wliore  a  collateral  attack  is  made  upon  a  domestic 
judgment  of  a  court  of  general  jurisdiction  it  will  be  presumed, 
in  the  absence  of  anything  to  the  contrary,  that  a  proper  affi- 
davit was  made,  although  none  is  found  in  the  record. "* 

§  365.  Order  and  notice. — A  valid  order  is  necessary  to  sup- 
port service  by  publication  as  against  a  direct  attack.^  It  must 
comply  with  the  statutory  requirements  in  all  material  respects.^ 
Thus,  where  the  statute  requires  the  order  to  be  made  by  the 
court,  the  order  of  the  clerk  is  insufficient,  and  will  not,  it  has 
been  held,  support  a  judgment  by  default  even  as  against  a 
collateral  attack.*^  But,  under  a  statute  providing  that  the 
order  must  direct  service  b}'^  publication  for  a  specified  time, 
"'or,  at  the  option  of  the  plaintiff,  by  service  of  the  summons, 
and  of  a  copy  of  the  complaint  and  order,  without  the  State, 
upon  the  defendant  personally,"  it  was  held  that  the  order  need 
not  direct  both  modes  of  service.  The  court  said  that,  while 
the  order  might  properly  direct  both  modes  of  service,  it  might 
just  as  properly  direct  either  mode  alone,  and  if  followed  by 
due  service  in  that  manner  the  service  would  be  good.'  The 
order  and  notice  should  be  harmonious,^  and  it  is  customary  to 

»  See  Braly  v.  Seaman,  30  Cal.  610 ;  *  Fetes  v.  Volmer,  8  N.  Y.  Supp.  294; 

Drake  v.  Hale,  38  Mo.  346;  Riley  v.  Odell  v.  Campbell,  9  Ore.  298. 

Nichols,  1  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  16;  Cissell  ^Bardsley  i'.  Hines,  33  Iowa,  157; 

V.  Pulaski  Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  891.  Rover  v.  Foster,  62  Iowa,  321,  8.  C.  17 

*  See  §  363,  ante.  (Statute  must  be  N.W.  R.  516;  Townsend  r.  Tallant,  33 
strictly  followed.)  Cal.  45.     But  these  decisions  are  of 

^  Hardy  v.  Beaty,  84  Texas,  562,  S.  questionable  soundness  in  so  far  as 

C.  31  Am.  St.  R.  80,  84.     See,  also,  they  hold  the  proceedings  subject  to 

AVilliams  v.  Haynes,  77  Texas,  283,  S.  collateral    attack.     See    Williams    v. 

C.  19  Am.  St.  R.  752,  and  note;  post,  Williams,  125  Ind.  156,  S.  C.  25  N.  E. 

§368.     (Proof  of  pubHcation.)  R.  176. 

*  Frisk  V.  Reigelman,  75  Wis.  499,  '  Matter  of  Field,  181  N.Y.  184,over- 
S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1117;  Beaupre  v.  ruling:  Ritten  r.  (4rinith,  16  Hun,  454. 
Brigham,  79  AVis.  436,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  « See  Pomeroy  v.  Betts,  31  Mo.  419; 
R.  596;  New  York  Baptist  Union  v.  Elee  r.  Wait,  28  111.  70.  But  compare 
Atwell,  95  Mich.  239,  S.  C.  54  N.  W.  Loring  r.  Binney,  38  Hun,  152,  S.  C. 
R.  760.  aflirnie.l  in  101  N.  Y.  623. 


448  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  366 

recite  in  the  order  the  jurisdictional  matters  on  which  it  is 
founded.^  The  notice  shoukl  properly  name  the  defendant, 
and  if  the  wrong  party  is  named  it  will  be  insufficient,  even,  it 
seems,  as  against  a  collateral  attack. ^  But  merely  formal  de- 
fects will  not  prevent  jurisdiction  from  attaching.-^  The  re- 
quirements as  to  the  notice  are,  in  the  main,  the  same  as  in  the 
case  of  an  ordinary  summons,  and  the  effect  of  failing  to  com- 
ply with  them  is  generally  the  same.  As  these  subjects  have 
already  been  treated  by  us,*  it  is  sufficient  at  this  place  to  call 
attention  to  a  few  additional  authorities  showing  what  is  re- 
quired in  certain  specific  cases. ^ 

§  366.  Requisites  as  to  newspaper  in  which  publication  is 
made. — AVhere  notice  is  given  by  publication  it  is  generally  re- 
quired that  it  shall  be  published  in  some  local  newspaper  of 
general  circulation.  Where  the  particular  newspaper  is  desig- 
nated in  the  order,  or  the  kind  of  newspaper  is  specified  in  the 
statute,  the  publication  must  be  made  in  the  kind  of  a  paper 
specified  and  in  the  particular  paper  designated  in  the  order. ^ 
But,  in  the  absence  of  any  such  requirement,  it  has  been  held 
that  the  publication  may  be  made  in  any  public  newspaper, 
published  in  the  English  language,  whether  it  be  a  scientific, 

1  Newman  V.Cincinnati,  18  Ohio,  323.  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  317  (suit  to  enforce 
'^  Trover  v.  Wood,  96  Mo.  478,  S.  C.  lien  of  drainage  assessment)  ;  Allen  v. 
10  S.  W.  R.  42;  Chamberlain  v.  Blod-  Ray,  96  Mo.  542,  S.  C.  10  S.  W.  R.  153 
gett,  96  Mo.  482,  S.  C.  10  S.  W.  R.  44;  (tax  suit) ;  Elee  v.  Wait,  28  111.  70  (re- 
Freeman  V.  Hawkins,  77  Texas,  498,  turn  day  should  be  fixed) ;  Wescott  v. 
S.  C.  14  S.  W.  R.  364;  Colton  v.  Ru-  Archer,  12  Neb.  345,  S.  C.  11  N.  W.  R. 
pert,  60  Mich.  318,  S.  C.  27  N.  W.  R.  491  (attachment,  property  should  be 
520 ;  Schissel  v.  Dickson,  129  Ind.  139,  described)  ;  Feller  v.  Clark,  36  Minn. 
S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  540;  Weaver  v.  Car-  338,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  175;  Kipp  v. 
penter,  42  la.  343;  Entrekin  v.  Cham-  Fernhold,  37  Minn.  132,  S.  C.  33N.W. 
bers,  11  Kan.  368.  R.  697;  Pickering  v.  Lomax,  120  111. 
3  Lane  v.  Innes,  43  Minn.  137,  S.  C.  289,  S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  175  (tax  cases, 
45  N.  W.  R.  4;  Voelzr.  Voelz,  80  Wis.  insufficient  description  in  notice). 
604,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  398.  «Townsend  v.  Tallant,  33  Cal.  45,  S. 
*  See  §§348-355,  ante.  C.  91  Am.  Dec.  617 ;  Otis  v.  Epperson, 
5  See  Streeter  v.  Penobscot  Lumber,  88  Mo.  131 ;  Hafern  v.  Davis,  10  Wis. 
etc.,  Co.,  74  Mich,  123,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  501 ;  Russell  v.  Gilson,  36  Minn.  366, 
R.  883;  Otis  v.  De  Boer,  116  Ind.  531,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  692. 


§  367  BRINGING    THE    ACTION l'U(JCKSS.  449 

legal,  commercial,  religious  or  political  newspaper.'  It  should, 
however,  in  the  absence  of  any  provision  to  the  contrary,  Ije  a 
paper  published  in  the  English  language.^  Publication  in  the 
supplement  of  a  paper  is  sufiicient'^  where  it  is  co-extensive  in 
circulation  with  the  paper  itself.^  And  the  fact  that  a  local 
paper  has  a  "patent  inside,"  printed  in  another  State,  will  not 
invalidate  a  notice  published  in  such  paper,  although  the  stat- 
ute requires  the  publication  to  be  made  in  a  paper  printed  in 
the  county.^  Nor  will  a  slight  discrepancy  in  the  name  of  the 
paper  invalidate  the  proceedings  where  it  is  in  reality  the  same 
paper  designated  in  the  order. ^  But,  under  the  "Sunday 
Laws"  in  force  in  most  of  the  States,  publication  on  Sunday, 
in  a  Sunday  newspaper,  is  ineffective.'^ 

§  367.  Time  of  publication. — The  notice  should  be  published 
ior  the  statutory  period,^  but  the  fact  that  publication  is  made 
for  a  longer  period  than  that  required  by  statute  will  not  in- 
validate the  notice.^  Where  the  publication  is  not  made  for 
the  statutory  period,  that  is,  where  the  constructive  service  is 
not  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time,  some  courts  hold  that  a 
judgment  based  thereon  is  absolutely  void,'"  but  others  hold 

'Kellogg  V.   Carrico,   47   Mo.    157;  N.  Y.353;  McLaughlin  r.  Wheeler  (S. 

Kerr  v.  Hitt,  75  111.  51.     But  in  other  Dak.),  50  N.  W.  R.  834. 

cases  it  is  held  that  the  paper  must  be  *  Guaranty  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bud- 

a  secular  paper  of  general  circulation,  dington,  27  Fla.  215,  233,  S.  C.  12  L. 

Beecher  v.   Stephens,    25  Minn.  146;  R.  A.  770;    Hill  v.  Faison,  27  Texas, 

Railton  I'.  Lauder,  26  111.  App.  055.  428;    Grewell  v.   Henderson,   5   Cal. 

*  Graham  v.  King,  50  3Io.  22,  S.  C.  465,  and  authorities  cited  in  the  fol- 
11  Am.  R.  401 ;  Cincinnati  v.  Bickett,  lowing  notes. 

2Q  Ohio  St.  49.  'Taylor  v.  Coots,  32  Neb.  30,  S.  C. 

^  Supervisors  r.  Horton,  75  Iowa,  271.  29  Am.  St.  R.  426. 

*Tully  V.  Bauer,  52  Cal.  487;  Zahr-  '"Currant'.  Board,  47  Minn. 313,S.  C. 

adnicek  v.  Selby,  15  Neb.  579.  50  N.W.  R.  237  ;  West  r.  St.  Paul,  etc., 

*  Palmer  i».  McCormick,30Fed.  R.82.  R'y  Co.,  40  Minn.  189,  S.  C.41  N.W.  R. 
«Soule  V.  Chase,  1  Rob.  (N.  Y.)  222;  1031 ;  Fladland  v.  Delaphxine,  19  Wis. 

Frisk  r.  Reigelman,  75  Wis.  499,  S.  C.  43  459 ;  Mohr  r.  Tulip,  40  Wis.  66,76 ;  Da- 

N.W.R.1117.     Compare  RusselU'.  Gil-  vis  r.  Reaves,  75  Tenn.  585;  Northcutt 

son,  36  Minn.  366,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  692.  it.  Lemery,  8  Ore.  316 ;  Palmer  r.  Mc- 

'  Shaw  V.  Williams,  87  Ind.  158,  S.  Master,  8  Mont.  186,  S.  C.  19  Pac.  R. 

C.  44  Am.  R.  756;  Scammon  v.  Chi-  585;  Hull  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

cago,  40  111.  146;  Smith  v.  AVilcox,  24  21  Neb.  371,  S.  C.  32  N.  W.  R.  162. 
29 


450 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§367 


that  it  is  not  void  and  can  not  be  successfully  attacked  collater- 
ally.^ Where  the  statute  provides  that  publication  shall  be 
made  for  a  certain  number  of  months,  it  is  generally  held 
that  it  should  be  construed  to  mean  calendar  months,  in  the 
absence  of  any  provision  to  the  contrary.^  In  computing  the 
number  of  days  for  which  publication  is  required  to  be  made, 
the  first  day,  according  to  the  modern  rule,  should  be  excluded 
and  the  last  included.^  Where  the  notice  is  required  to  be 
published  once  each  week  for  a  certain  number  of  weeks,  the 
full  number  of  days  necessary  to  constitute  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  weeks  must,  according  to  the  weight  of  authority,  elapse 
between  the  date  of  the  first  publication  and  the  return  day.* 
So,  it  has  been  held  that  a  statutory  provision  requiring  pub- 
lication for  ''three  successive  weeks"  means  that  twenty-one 
days  must  elapse  between  the  first  publication  and  the  return 
day,  and  not  simply  three  insertions  in  a  weekly  newspaper 
covering    only    fifteen    days.^      Other    cases    have    gone    still 


1  Jackson  v.  State,  104  Ind.  516,  S.  C. 
3  N.  E.  R.  863;  Mancey  v.  Joest,  74 
Ind.  409 ;  Essig  v.  Lower,  120  Ind.  239, 
S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  1090;  Ballinger  v. 
Tarbell,  16  la.  491;  Smith  v.  Dubuque 
Co.,  1  la.  492 ;  In  re  Newman's  Estate 
75  Cal.  213,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  887 ;  Hav- 
ens V.  Drake,  43  Kan.  484,  S.  C.  23  Pac. 
R.  621 ;  Arnett  v.  Bailey,  60  Ala.  435 ; 
Hering  v.  Chambers,  103  Pa.  St.  172; 
McGlawhorn  v.  Worthington,  98  N. 
Car.  199,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  633;  Berrian 
V.  Rogers,  43  Fed.  R.  467. 

*  Guaranty  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bud- 
dington,  27  Via.  215,  233,  S.  C.  12  L.  R. 
A.  770,  and  note ;  Guaranty  Trust,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Green  Cove  Spring,  etc.,  Co.,  139 
U.  S.  137,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  512.  See, 
also.  Chapter  VIII,  §  304.  Contra, 
Stackhouse  v.  Halsey,  3  Johns.  Ch. 
73;  Jackson  v.  Clark,  7  Johns.  217. 

»  Kane  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  114  N. 
Y.  586,  594;  Forsyth  v.  Warren,  62 
111.  68;  Mitchell  v.  Woodson,  37  Miss. 
567;    Savings,  etc.,  Society  v.  Thomp- 


son, 32  Cal.  347;  Hagerman  v.  Ohio 
Building,  etc.,  Ass'n,  25  Ohio  St.  186. 

*  Bacon  v.  Kennedy,  56  Mich.  329 
Williams  v.  Sacramento  Co.,  58  Cal 
237;    Boyd  v.  McFarlin,  58  Ga.  208 
McDonald  v.  Cooper,  32  Fed.  R.  735 
Bank  v.  Pac.  Nat.  Bank,  89  N.  Y.397 
Dillard  v.  Krise,  86  Va.  410,  S.  C.  10  S. 
E.  R.  430.     Contra  Knowles  v.  Sum- 
mey,  52  Miss.  377;  Lowenstine  v.  Gil- 
lespie, 6  Lea  (Tenn.),641;  Gilmorev. 
Sapp,  100  111.  297. 

^  Loughridge  v.  City  of  Huntington, 
56  Ind.  253;  Security  Co.  v.  Arbuckle, 
123  Ind.  518,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  329. 
See,  also,  Gibson  v.  Roll,  30  111.  172; 
Davis  V.  Robinson,  70  Tex.  394.  Con- 
tra, Swett'j).  Sprague,  55  Me.  190.  And, 
compare,  Haywood  v.  Russell,  44  Mo. 
252;  Bennetts.  Hetherington,  41  la. 
142;  Cox  V.  North  Wisconsin  Lumber 
Co.,  82  Wis.  141,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R. 
1130;  Calvert  v.  Calvert,  15  Col.  390, 
S.  C.  24  Pac.  R.  1043. 


§368 


BRINGING    TIIK    ACTION PROCESS. 


451 


further,  holding  that  where  publication  is  required  for  a  cer- 
tain time  before  the  return  day,  or  the  happening  of  some 
event,  the  publication  must  be  complete  that  length  of  time 
before  the  event.'  A  longer  notice  than  that  required  will  not 
necessarily  vitiate  the  proceedings. ^ 

§  368.  Proof  of  publication. — Publication  of  notice  is  gen- 
erally proved  by  the  affidavit  of  the  editor  or  publisher  of  the 
paper,  or  by  his  foreman  or  clerk,  with  a  copy  of  the  printed 
notice  annexed.^  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  although 
there  is  no  affidavit  in  the  record,  a  recital  in  the  judgment  or 
decree  showing  due  service  of  process  is  at  least  prima  facicy 
if  not  conclusive,  evidence  of  such  service,  and  that  it  can  not 
be  collaterally  attacked  in  the  courts  of  the  State  in  which  the 
judgment  was  rendered.^  But  where  the  return  or  proof  shows 
that  there  was  no  service  it  has  been  held  that  the  judgment  is 
void,    notwithstanding    a    recital    of    service    in    the    record.* 


'  Mowry  v.  Blandin,  64  N.  H.  3; 
Bussey  v.  Leavitt,  12  Me.  378.  In  Se- 
curity Co.  V.  Arbuckle,  123  Ind.  518,  S. 
C.  24  N.  E.  R.  329,  it  was  held  suffi- 
cient, however,  under  a  statute  requir- 
ing publication  for  three  weeks  suc- 
cessively, thirty  days  before  the  return 
day,  where  three  full  weeks  elapsed 
between  the  date  of  the  first  publica- 
tion and  the  thirty  daj'S,  or,  in  other 
words,  fifty-two  (fifty-one)  days  be- 
tween the  first  publication  and  the  re- 
turn day.  So,  in  Horn  !\  Indianapolis 
Nat.  Bank,  125  Ind.  381,  S.  C.  9  L.  R. 
A.  676. 

*  Taylor  r.  Reid,  103  111.  349;  Tooke 
r.  Newman,  75  111.  215;  Kipp  v.  Col- 
lins, 33  Minn.  394;  Beal  v.  Blair,  33 
la.  318;  Taylor  v.  Coots,  32  Neb.  30, 
S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  964. 

'Bolin  V.  Francis,  72  la.  019;  Kay 
•.  Watson,  17  Ohio,  27;  Cissell  v.  Pui- 
iski  Co.,  3  McCrary  (U.  S.),  446 ;  Sharp 
•.  Daugney,  33  Cal.  505;  Penuoyer 
.'.  Neff,  95  V.  S.  714.     But,  in  Wilkin- 


son v.-Conaty,  65  Mich.  614,  S.  C.  32 
N.  W.  R.  841,  it  was  held  unnecessary 
to  attach  the  notice  cut  from  the  pa- 
per. 

*  Robertson  v.  Winchester,  1  Pick. 
(Tenn.)  171,  S.  C.  1  S.  AV.  R.  781; 
Sidwell  r.  Worthington's  Heirs,  8 
Dana  (Ky.),  74,  77;  Andrews  r.  Bem- 
hardi,  87  111.  365;  Dowell  v.  Lahr,  97 
Ind.  146;  Beattie  v.  Wilkinson,  36 
Fed.  R.  646 ;  Prout  v.  People,  83  111. 
154 ;  Sargeant  v.  State  Bank,  12  How. 
(U.S.)  371,  384;  Treadway  v.  East- 
burn,  57  Tex.  209,  213 ;  Hardy  v.  Beaty, 
84  Tex.  562,  S.  C.  31  Am.  St.  R.  80; 
Fowler  r.  Whiteman,  2  Ohio  St.  270; 
English  V.  Woodman,  40  Kan.  412,  S. 
C.  20  Pac.  R.  262.  Compare  Hunter 
V.  Spotswood,  1  Wash.  (Va.)  145. 

^Coan  V.  Clow,  83  Ind.  417,  419; 
Hawkins  v.  Hawkins,  28  Ind.  66; 
Mickel  V.  Hicks,  19  Kan.  578,  S.  C.  27 
Am.  R.  161 ;  Barber  v.  ;Morris,  37 
IMinn.  194,  S.  C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  836,  838; 
Dogan  V.  Brown,  44  Miss.  235 :  Hobby 


452 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  369 


Where  service  has  in  fact  been  made  and  the  record  fails  to 
show  it  or  the  affidavit  of  publication  is  defective,  the  court 
may  permit  the  affidavit  to  be  amended  or  filed  nunc  pro  tu7ic.^ 
The  affidavit  should  show  that  all  the  requirements  of  the  stat- 
ute have  been  complied  with.^  Thus,  it  should  show  that  the 
publication  was  made  in  the  proper  paper, ^  that  it  was  mado 
for  the  requisite  period, "^  and  that  the  affiant  is  a  person  au- 
thorized by  statute  to  make  the  affidavit.^ 

§  369 .  Mailing  and  postino:  notice.— It  is  frequently  provided 
that,  in  addition  to  publishing  notice  in  a  newspaper,  a  copy 
of  the  paper  or  the  notice  shall  be  mailed  to  the  defendant,^  if 
his  address  be  known,  or  that  a  copy  of  the  notice  shall  be 
posted  in  some  public  place.'  The  notice  should  be  mailed  at 
the    proper    place, ^    and    properly    addressed.^     The    affidavit 


V.  Bunch,  83  Ga.  1,  S.  C.  20  Am.  St.  R. 
301 ;  Laney  v.  Garbee,  105  Mo.  355,  S. 
C.  16  S.  AV.  R.  831;  Fowler  v.  Simp- 
son, 79  Tex.  611 ;  Sibley  v.  Waffle,  16 
N.  Y.  180.  See,  also,  Adams  v.  Cow- 
les,  95  Mo.  501,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R. 
74;  Settlemier  v.  Sullivan,  97  XJ.  S. 
444.  And  where  the  judgment  is  di- 
rectly attacked  by  appeal,  the  absence 
of  proof  of  publication  has  been  held 
fatal,  notwithstanding  a  recital  of  ser- 
vice in  the  judgment.  Weeks  v.  Gari- 
baldi, etc.,  Co.,  73  Cal.  599,  S.  C.  15 
Pac.  R.  302. 

'  Britton  v.  Larson,  23  Neb.  806,  S.  C. 
37  N.  W.  R.  681;  Cullum  v.  Batre,  2 
Ala.  415;  Burr  v.  Seymour,  43  Minn. 
401,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  715;  Frisk  v. 
Reigelman,  75  Wis.  499,  S.  C.  43  N.W. 
R.  1117;  Hackett?;.  Lathrop,  36  Kan. 
661,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  220;  Weaver  v. 
Roberts,  84  N.  Car.  493;  Estate  of 
Newman,  75  Cal.  213,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St. 
R. 146. 

» Gibney  v.  Crawford,  51  Ark.  34 ; 
Coster  V.  Bank,  24  Ala.  37 ;  Settlemier 
V.  Sullivan,  97  U.  S.  444;  Payne  v. 
Young,  8  N.Y.  158 ;  Fitch  v.  Pinckard, 


5  111.  69 ;    Steinbach  v.  Leese,  27  Cal. 
295. 
s  See  §  366,  ante. 

*Passmore  v.  Moore,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 
(Ky.)  591;  Godfrey  i).  Valentine,  39 
Minn.  336;  Ramsey  v.  Hommel,  68 
Wis.  12;  Lawlins  v.  Lackey,  6  Monr. 
(Ky.)70.  Compare  Feustmannv.  Gott, 
65  Mich.  592;  Wood  v.  Knapp,  100  N. 
Y.  109;  Lane  v.  Innes,  43  Minn.  137, 
S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  4. 

^Farmers'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Fonda,  65 
Mich.  533 ;  Hill  v.  Hoover,  5  Wis.  354 ; 
Cross  V.  Wilson,  52  Ark.  312,  S.  C.  12 
S.  W.  R.  576;  Brown  v.  Mahan,  4  J. 
J.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  59;  Haywood -y.  Col- 
lins, 60  111.  328. 

«  See  Cullum  v.  Branch  Bank,  23  Ala. 
797;  Scorpion  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  Mar- 
sano,.10Nev.  370. 

'  Batre  v.  Auze,  5  Ala.  173 ;  Myric  v. 
Adams,  4  Munf.  (Va.)  366;  McKeyi). 
Cobb,  33  Miss.  533. 

^Thompson  v.  Brannan,  76  Cal.  618 
S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  783;  Mudge  v.  Stein 
hart,  78  Cal.  34,  S.  C.  20  Pac.  R.  147 
Van  Aernam  w.Winslow,  37  Minn.  514 

9  Likens  v.  McCormick,  39  Wis.  313 


§  370  BRINGING   THE    ACTION PROCESS.  453 

should  show  these  facts,  together  with  the  date  of  mailing  and 
any  other  facts  required  hy  statute  to  be  therein  stated.^ 
W' here  the  notice  is  required  to  be  posted  in  a  public  place  it 
becomes  important  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase 
"public  place."  It  is  a  relative  term,  and  does  not  necessarily 
have  the  same  meaning  in  a  statute  providing  for  notice  as  it 
has  in  a  criminal  statute,  requiring  an  act  to  be  done  in  a  pub- 
lic place  in  order  to  make  it  a  crime. ^  Thus,  it  has  been  held 
that  posting  a  notice  on  a  court-house,  although  not  on  the 
front  of  it,  is  a  sufficient  compliance  with  a  statute  requiring 
the  notice  to  be  posted  in  a  public  place;^  and  a  school-house, 
a  church  and  a  railroad  depot  have  been  held  to  be  public 
places  within  the  meaning  of  such  a  statute.*  But  it  has  been 
held  that  a  shoemaker's  shop  is  not  a  public  place. ^ 

§  370.  Objections. — Objections  on  account  of  irregularities 
or  defects  in  the  process  or  service  should  be  made  at  the  ear- 
liest opportunity.^  The  ordinary  mode  is  to  move  to  quash  the 
writ  or  set  aside  the  service,  and  a  special  appearance  should 
be  entered  for  that  purpose.'     If  the  return  is  defective  a  mo- 

Beaupre  v.  Brigham,  79  Wis.  436,  S.  which  is  likelj'  to  give  information  to 

C.  48  N.  W.  R.  59(i;    Smith  v.  AVells,  those  interested   and  who  may  possi- 

69  N.  Y.  600;  Paulling  v.  Creagh,  63  bly  become  bidders  at  the  sale."   Cum- 

Ala.  398;  Foley  v.  Connelly,  9  Iowa,  mins  v.  Little,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  48. 

240 ;  Aldige  v.  Knox,  16  La.  Ann.  180.  '  Campbell  v.  AVheeler,  69  Iowa,  588. 

And  postage  prepaid.     4  Wait's  Pr.,  *  Wilson  v.   Biicknam,  71  Me.  545; 

619,  620.  Scammon  v.  Scammon,  28  N.  H.  419; 

»  Briggsv.  Finn,  10  Iowa,  590;  Trask  Russell  v.  Dyer,  40  N.  H.  173;  Terri- 

i'.  Key,  4  Greene   (Iowa),  372;  Clark  tory  v.  Lannon,  9  Mont.  1.     See,  also, 

r.  Adams,  33   Mich.    159;    Rogers  v.  Goss  r.   Cardell,  53  Vt.  447;    Austin 

Rogers,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  445.     The  affida-  v.  Soule,  36  Vt.  645.     We  suppose  a 

vit  of  the  attorney  for  the   plaintiff  telegraph  or  telephone  pole  or  the  like 

that  he  deposited  a  copy  of  the  sum-  on  a  much  traveled  street  might  also 

mons  and  complaint  in  the  post-office  be  a  public  place  within  the  meaning 

is  competent  evidence  thereof.  Ander-  of  such  a  statute, 

son  V.  Goff,  72  Cal.  65,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  '^Tidd  v.  Smith,  3  N.  H.  178. 

R.  34.  *  Lawrence  r.  Jones,  15  Abb.  Pr.(N. 

»Cahoon  V.  Coe,57  N.  H.  556.     '"A  Y.)  110;   Treftz  r.  Stahl  (111.  App.), 

public  place'  is  a  relative  term.  What  18  L.  R.  A.  500,  502;    Elliott's  App. 

is  a  public  place  for  one  purpose  is  not  Proc,  §§  182,  328,  329. 

for  another.     That   is   a    public    and  '  Hust  r.  Conn,  12  Ind.  257;  Cincin- 

proper  place    for  setting  up  notices  nati,  H.  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Street,  50 


454 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


tion  to  set  aside  the  return  should  be  made,  stating  the  objec- 
tions thereto.^  A  joint  motion  by  several  defendants  to  quash 
a  summons  is  not  well  taken  if  it  is  good  as  to  any  of  them.- 
Objections  to  process  or  service  should  specifically  point  out 
the  defects  complained  of.^  If  the  objection  is  founded  upon 
extrinsic  facts  it  sliould  be  raised  by  plea  in  abatement.* 

§  371.  Waiver. — Jurisdiction  of  the  person  maybe  given  by 
consent,^  and  objection  to  the  process,  or  service  on  account 
of  irregularities  or  defects  may  be  waived  by  appearing  and 
pleading  to  the  merits  or  going  to  trial. ^  Objections  not  spe- 
cifically made  will  be  regarded  as  waived,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  other  objections  may  have  been  duly  stated.'     Illus- 


Ind.  225;  Smith  v.  Hackley,  44  Mo. 
App.  614;  McCulloch  v.  Ellis,  28  111. 
App.  439 ;  Detroit  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Burch,  76  Mich.  608,  S.  C.  43  N.W.  R. 
453;  Foster  i).  Markland,  37  Kan.  32, 
S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  452. 

^  Hutchins  v.  Latimer,  5  Ind.  67 ; 
Campbell  v.  Swasey,  12  Ind.  70 ;  Jef- 
fersonville,  M.  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dun- 
lap,  29  Ind.  426. 

2  Mansfield  v.  Shipp,  128  Ind.  55,  S. 
C.  27  N.  E.  R.  427. 

3  Brown  v.  Goodyear,  29  Neb.  376,  S. 
C.  45  N.  W.  R.  618;  Kankakee  Drain- 
age Dist.  V.  Lake  Fork  Spec.  Drainage 
Dist.,  29111.  App.  86  (Reversed  on  other 
points  in  130  111.  261) ;  Hadley  v.  Gut- 
ridge,  58  Ind.  302. 

*  Greer  V.  Young,  120  111.  184,  S.  C. 
11  N.  E.  R.  167;  Cooke  v.  Gibbs,  3 
Mass.  193;  Guild  v.  Richardson,  6 
Pick.  364;  Duvall  v.  Craig,  2  Wheat. 
(U.  S.)  55;  Liliard's  Ex'r  v.  Liliard's 
Ex'rs,  5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  340.  This  is 
the  practice  where  the  common  law 
remains  unchanged. 

5  Fields  V.  Walker,  23  Ala.  155; 
Hawkins  v.  Hughes,  87  N.  Car.  115 ; 
Dicka  V.  Hatch,  10  la.  380;  Andrews 
V.  Wheaton,  23  Conn.  112;  Cottrell  v. 
Thompson,  15  N.  J.  L.  344;    Elliott  v. 


Lawhead,  43  Ohio  St.  171,  S.  C.  1  N. 
E.  R.  577;  Union  Pac.  R'y  Co.  v.  De 
Busk,  12  Col.  294,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R. 
221 ;  Whyte  v.  Gibbes,  20  How.  (U.  S.) 
541;  Grimmett??.  Askew,  48  Ark.  151; 
Brown  v.  Webber,  6  Cush.  (Mass.) 
660 ;  McCormick  v.  Penna.  Cent.  R.  R. 
Co.,  49  N.  Y.  303 ;  Cofrode  v.  Gartner 
(Mich.),  7L.  R.  A.511. 

^  Fitzgerald  &  Mallory  Constr.  Co.  v. 
Fitzgerald,  137  U.  S.  98,  S.  C.  11  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  36;  Aultman  v.  Steinan,  8  Neb. 
112;  Meixell  v.  Kirkpatrick,  29  Kan. 
679;  Butts  v.  Screws,  95  N.  Car.  215; 
People  V.  Haughton,  41  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
558;  Sears  v.  Starbird,  78  Cal.  225,  S. 
C.  20  Pac.  R.  547 ;  Palmer  v.  Sanders 
(N.  J.),  17  Atl.  R.  1084;  Meinhard  v. 
Youngblood  (S.  Car.),  15  S.  E.  R.  950; 
McCormick  Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Schneider  (Neb.),  54  N.  W.  R.  257; 
Briggs  V.  Sneghan,  45  Ind.  14;  Ryan 
V.  Driscoll,  83  111.  415.  So,  by  written 
acknowledgment  of  service.  Earbee 
V.  Ware,  9  Port.  (Ala.)  291 ;  Ayres  v. 
Hill,  82  Ala.  401 ;  Carter  v.  Penn,  79 
Ga.  747;  Jewett  v.  Miller,  19  Tex.  290; 
State  V.  Cohen,  13  S.  Car.  198;  Cheney 
V.  Harding,  21  Neb.  68. 

'  Feibleman  v.  Edmonds,  69  Tex. 
334,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  417. 


^372 


BRINGING    THE    ACTION PROCESS. 


455 


trations  of  the  rule,  luul  iustaiices  of  defects  and  irregularities 
deemed  to  have  beou  waived  will  be  found  in  another  chapter.' 

§  372.  Return  and  proof  of  service. — There  i.s  a  sharp  con- 
flict among  the  authorities  as  to  how  far  the  return  of  an  of- 
ficer is  conclusive;  but  the  weight  of  authority  seems  to  he  to 
the  effect  that  as  between  third  persons  and  in  favor  of  tlie  of- 
ficer, where  he  is  a  party,  it  is  simply  prima  facie  evidence  of 
the  service, 2  while  as  between  the  parties  to  the  action  and 
their  privies  it  is  generally  regarded  as  conclusive  and  can  not 
be  collaterally  impeached.'^  But,  as  already  shown,  a  return 
may  be  amended,  in  a  proper  case,*  and  it  is  the  fact  of  service 
and  not  merely  the  proof  thereof  that  gives  jurisdiction.^  And 
there  are  cases  in  which  it  is  held  that  the  sheriff's  return  may 
be  contradicted,*'  especially  where  fraud  is  shown.'  So,  in  a 
recent  case,  it  is  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Michigan  that 


'  See  Vol.  2,  Ch.  I. 

*Chadbourne  v.  Sumner,  16  N.  H. 
129,  S.  C.  41  Am.  Dec.  720;  Nichols  v. 
Patten,  18  Me.  231,  S.  C.  36  Am.  Dec. 
713 ;  Bruce  v.  Holden,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 
187;  Sias  v.  Badger,  6  N.  H.393;  Gyf- 
ford  V.  Woodgate,  11  East,  297 ;  Hens- 
ley  V.  Rose,  76  Ala.  373. 

'McGeorge  v.  Harrison,  etc.,  Co., 
141  Pa.  St.  575,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  671 ; 
Green  v.  Kindy,  43  Mich.  279 ;  Stewart 
V.  Griswold,  134  Mass.  391;  Chad- 
bourne  V.  Sumner,  16  N.  H.  129,  S.  C. 
41  Am.  Dec.  720 ;  Nichols  v.  Nichols,  96 
Ind.  433;  Splahn  v.  Gillespie,  48  Ind. 
397;  Cully  v.  Shirk,  131  Ind.  76,  S.  C. 
30  N.  E.  R.  882;  Rowell  r.  Klein,  44 
Ind.  290;  Bennethum  r.  Bowers,  133 
Pa.  St.  332,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  361 ;  John- 
son V.  Jones,  2  Neb.  126 ;  Rader  v.  Ad- 
amson,  37  "W.  Va.  582.  S.  C.  16  S.  E. 
R.  808 ;  Thomas  r.  Ireland,  88  Ky.  581, 
S.  C.  21  Am.  St.  R.  356;  Studebaker 
V.  Johnson,  41  Kan.  326,  S.  C.  13  Am. 
St.  R.  287,  and  note.  So,  it  is  conclu- 
sive against  the  officer.  Splahn  r.  Gil- 
lespie, 48  Ind.  397  ;  Blue  v.  Common- 


wealth, 2  J.  J.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  26;  Hen- 
sley  V.  Rose,  76  Ala.  373 ;  Duncan  v. 
Gerdine,  59  Miss.  550 ;  Winnebago  Co. 
V.  Brones,  68  Iowa,  682.  Compare 
Decker  v.  Armstrong,  87  Mo.  316. 

*  Ante,  §  355 ;  1  Freeman  on  Judg- 
ments, §  89b  ;  Murfree  on  Sheriffs, 
§868. 

*  See  White  v.  Hinton,  3  AVyo.  753, 
S.  C.  17  L.  R.  A.  66,  70,  and  criticism 
of  Mr.  Freeman  on  the  opinion  in  the 
case  of  Reinhart  v.  Lugo,  21  Am.  St. 
R.52,  56. 

®  Gadwin  v.  Monds,  106  N.  Car.  448, 
S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  1044 ;  AVilson  v.  Ship- 
man,  34  Neb.  573,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  576 ;  . 
Forrest t'.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. « 
R.  1 ;  Wheeler  &  W.  :Mfg.  Co.  r.  [Mc- 
Laughlin, 28  N.  Y.  S.  R.  372 ;  Pollard : 
V.  Wegener,  13  Wis.  572,  578 ;  Dasher 
V. Dasher,  47  Ga.320;  Bond  c. AVilson, ' 
8  Kan.  228 ;  Knowles  r.  Gaslight,  etc., 
Co.,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.)  58. 

'  Dobbins  v.  McNamara,  113  Ind.  54, 
S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  887 ;  Nietert  i-.  Trent- 
man,  104  Ind.  390,  S.  C.  4  N.  E.  R.  30<>.. 


456 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  372 


a  return  of  personal  service  by  a  private  person  is  open  to  con- 
tradiction.^ The  return  should  be  in  writing,  but  where  it  has 
been  lost  proof  of  the  service  may  be  made  by  parol  evidence,^ 
and  it  has  also  been  held  that  where  it  is  defective  it  may  be 
aided,  in  order  to  prevent  a  failure  of  justice,  by  other  proof  of 
the  service.^  The  return  should  be  signed  by  the  officer  mak- 
ing it,  and  if  by  deputy,  he  should  sign  it  in  the  name  of  his 
principal  by  himself  as  deputy.*  It  should  state  the  facts 
showing  the  person  served  and  the  time  and  manner  of  service, 
together  with  any  other  matters  required  by  statute.^  Where 
the  court  appoints  a  special  deputy  or  elisor  to  serve  the  pro- 
cess, he  makes  the  return  in  his  own  name.^  In  some  juris- 
dictions service  and  proof  thereof  may  also  be  made  by  private 
persons,  not  acting  in  any  official  capacity.  In  such  case  the 
return  should  be  verified  by  the  affidavit  of  the  person  who 
made  the  service.'^     It  is  also  provided  by  statute  in  some  of 


'  Detroit  Free  Press  Co.  v.  Bagg,  78 

[Mich.  650,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R.  149. 

,'    « Bridges  v.  Arnold,  37  la.  221. 

t  '  Kipp  V.  Fullerton,  4  Minn.  473; 
J^mith  V.  Pattison,  45  Miss.  619. 

[  *  Rowley  v.  Howard,  23  Cal.  401; 
;leinhart  v.  Lugo,  86  Cal.  395,  S.  C.  24 
Pac.  R.  1089 ;  Bolard  v.  Mason,  66  Pa. 
St.  138;  Glencoe  v.  People,  78  111.382; 
Murfree  on  Sheriffs,  §  836.  See  Mar- 
tin V.  Aultman,  80  Wis.  150,  S.  C.  49 
y.  W.  R.  749;  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  23 
Fla.  413,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  834;  Gibbens 
V.  Pickett,  31  Fla.  147,  S.  C.  12  So.  R. 
17 ;  Martin  v.  Gray,  142  U.  S.  236. 

*  Hodges  v.  Brett,  4  Green  (la.),  345; 
Bendy  v.  Boyce,  37  Tex.  443 ;  Williams 
V.  Downes,  30  Tex.  51 ;  Fisher  v.  Fred- 
ericks, 33  Mo.  612 ;  Smith  v.  Rollins, 
25  Mo.  408;  Botsford  v.  O'Connor,  57 
111.  72;  Hochlander  v.  Hochlander,  73 
111.  618;  Dawson  v.  State  Bank,  3 
Ark.  505;  Merritt  v.  White,  37  Miss. 
438 ;  Woodliffe  v.  Connor,  45  Miss.  552 ; 
Sayles  v.  Davis,  20  Wis.  302 ;  Pollard 
V.  Wegener,  13  Wis.  569 ;  Richmond  v. 
■Brookings,  48  Fed.  R.  241;    Ruther- 


ford V.  Davenport,  Texas  Ct.  of  App., 
C.  C,  417,  S.  C.  16  S.W.  R.  110 ;  Laney 
V.  Garbee,  105  Mo.  355,  S.  C.  16  S.  W. 
R.  831 ;  Robbins  t?.  Clemmens,  410hio 
St.  285 ;  Crisman  v.  Swisher,  28  N.  J. 
L.  149;  Perry  r.  Dover,  12 Pick.  (Mass.) 
206.  But  if  it  shows  that  the  statute 
has  been  complied  with  in  all  material 
respects,  it  ought  not  to  be  held  bad  on 
a  mere  technicality,  such  as  the  fail- 
ure to  use  the  exact  language  of  the 
statute,  or  the  like.  Collins  v.  Wall- 
ing, 6  La.  Ann.  702 ;  Presley  v.  Ander- 
son, 42  Miss.  274;  Holsinger  v.  Dun- 
ham, 11  Ind.  346;  Rees  v.  Rees,  7 
Ore.  78 ;  Foster  v.  Berry,  14  R.  1. 601 ; 
Betts  V.  Boyd,  31  Neb.  815 ;  Murfree 
on  Sheriffs,  §  846. 

« Glencoe  v.  People,  78  111.  382.  In 
Nebraska,  return  by  special  deputy 
must  be  made  under  oath.  Forbes  v. 
Bringe,  32  Neb.  757,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 
720. 

'  Coffee  V.  Gates,  28  Ark.  43;  State 
Bank  v.  Marsh,  10  Ark.  129;  Estate  of 
Robinson,  6  Mich.  137;  Forbes  v. 
Bringe,  32  Neb.  757,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R. 


§373 


BRINGING    THK    ACTION PROCESS. 


457 


the  States  that  a  written  afkiio\vh'(lgiiient  of  tlie  defendant  on 
the  back  of  the  summons  shall  be  sutHcient  proof  of  service.' 
Other  matters  rehating  to  the  return  and  proof  of  service  are 
sufficiently  considered  elsewhere.^ 

§  373.  Privilc<i:e — Exemption  from  service  of  process. — At 
common  law  a  witness  or  suitor  while  attending  court  and  dur- 
ing a  reasonable  time  in  going  and  returning  is  privileged 
from  arrest  in  ordinary  cases, -^  and,  while  the  authorities  are 
conflicting  as  to  the  existence  and  extent  of  their  privilege 
from  service  of  process  at  common  law,  the  rule  now  estab- 
lished in  most  jurisdictions,  either  by  statute  or  judicial  de- 
cision is  that  a  non-resident,  at  least,  who  comes  into  a  State 
as  a  witness  or  party  to  a  suit  is  exempt  from  the  service  of 
process  while  attending  court  and  while  traveling  to  and  from 
the  court,  so  long  as  there  is  no  unreasonable  delay  upon  his 
part.*     Even  if  jurisdiction  can,  in  any  sense,  be  obtained  by 


720;  German  Mut.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Decker,  74  Wis.  556,  S.  C.  43  N.  AV.  R. 
500;  Yolo  County  v.  Knight,  70  Cal. 
431. 

'  McCormaek  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  53 
Ind.  466,  470;  Cheney  v.  Harding,  21 
Neb.  65 ;  Hendrix  v.  Cawthorn,  71  Ga. 
742;  Montgomery  v.  Tutt,  11  Cal.  307; 
Segars  v.  Segars,  76  Me.  96;  Jewett  v. 
Miller,  19  Tex.  290. 

'  See,  in  regard  to  amending  the  re- 
turns in  regard  to  proof  of  service  by 
publication,  §  368 ;  and  as  to  return 
day,  §  353. 

»3  Blk.  Com.  (Cooley's  ed.)  §289, 
and  note ;  In  re  Healey,  38  Am.  R.  713, 
and  note;  Jones  v.  Knauss,  31  N.  J. 
Eq.  211,  and  note;  AVilson  v.  Donald- 
son, 117  Ind.  356,  S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  266, 
and  note.  Many  other  authorities 
might  be  cited  in  supi^ort  of  this  prop- 
osition, but,  as  most  of  them  are  col- 
lected and  reviewed  in  each  of  the 
cases  and  notes  above  referred  to,  it 
would  be  useless  to  repeat  them  here. 

*In  re  Healey,  53  Vt.  694,  S.  C.  38 


Am.  R.  713;  Parker  r.  :Mareo,  136  N. 
Y.  585  (containing  an  elaborate  review 
of  the  authorities)  ;  Halsey  v.  Stewart, 
4  N.  J.  L.  366 ;  Massey  v'.  Colville,  45 
N.  J.  L.  119,  S.  C.  46  Am.  R.  754; 
Bolgiano  v.  Gilbert  Lock  Co.,  73  Md. 
132,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  788,  S.  C.  25  Am. 
St.  R.  582;  Mulhearn  v.  Press  Pub. 
Co.,  53  N.  J.  L.  153,  S.  C.  11  L.  R.  A. 
101;  Wilson  v.  Donaldson,  117  Ind. 
356,  S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  266,  and  note ; 
Sherman  v.  Gundlach,  37  Minn.  118; 
Shaver  v.  Letherby,  73  Mich.  500,  S.  C. 
41  N.W.  R.  677 ;  Andrews  v.  Lembeck, 
46  Ohio  St.  38,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  483 ; 
Thompson's  Case,  122  Mass.  428; 
Thornton  v.  Am.  Writing  Mach.  Co., 
83  Ga.  288,  S.  C.  20  Am.  St.  R.  320; 
Kauffman  v.  Kennedy,  25  Fed.  R.  785. 
But,  see  Christian  v.  Williams,  111 
Uo.  429,  S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  96.  In 
Greer  v.  Young,  120  111.  184,  it  is  held 
that  one  who  goes  into  another  juris- 
diction merely  to  take  depositions  is 
not  exempt.  Compare,  however.  Finch 
V.  Galligher,  12  N,  Y.  Sup.  487. 


458  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COUKT.  ^j  375 

service  of  summons  upon  such  a  person  in  a  civil  action,  the 
service  will  at  least  be  set  aside  on  application.^  So,  where 
service  is  obtained  by  abuse  of  criminal  process  or  fraud. ^ 

§  374.  Capias  ad  respondendum. — At  common  law  the  writ 
of  capias  ad  rcsjwndciidum,  whereby  the  appearance  of  the  de- 
fendant was  enforced  by  "arrest  of  his  person,"  was  first  used 
merely  as  mesne  process  after  the  defendant  had  failed  to  ap- 
pear in  response  to  the  original  writ,  but  it  soon  became  the 
original  writ  by  which  civil  actions  were  begun  whenever  the 
right  to  arrest  the  defendant  existed.^  Since  imprisonment  for 
debt  was  abolished  it  has  been  little  used.  In  some  of  the 
States,  however,  it  is  still  used  in  cases  where  the  defendant  is 
a  fraudulent  debtor  or  is  attempting  to  defraud  the  plaintiff, 
to  whom  he  is  indebted,  by  leaving  the  State  and  taking  his 
property  with  him.  An  affidavit  stating  the  facts  is  usually 
reciuired  before  the  writ  will  issue.*  As  the  right  and  manner 
of  instituting  an  action  in  this  way  are  regulated  by  statute, 
which  should  be  strictly  followed,  and  as  it  is  seldom  resorted 
to,  no  further  consideration  of  the  subject  is  necessary  in  this 
connection. 

§  375.   Process  on  cross-bill  and  supplemental  complaint. — 

As  a  general  rule,  a  new  summons  must  be  issued  and  service 
thereof  duly  made  where  a  cross-bill  or  complaint  is  filed  stat- 

'  Fitzgerald  &  Mallory  Constr.  Co.  v.  29  N.  J.  L.  385 ;    Palmer  v.  Rowan,  21 

Fitzgerald,  137  U.  S.  98,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Neb.  452,  S.  C.  59  Am.  R.  844;    Ben- 

Ct.  R.  36,  38 ;  Bolgiano  v.  Gilbert  Lock  ninghoff  v.  Oswell,  37  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.) 

Co.,  73  Md.  132,  S.  C.  25  Am.  St.  R.  235;  Compton  v.  Wilder,  40  Ohio  St. 

582 ;  Mitchell  v.  Huron  Circuit  Judge,  130 ;  Wood  v.  Wood,  78  Ky.  624 ;  Baker 

53  Mich.  541.  v.  Wales,  45  How.  Pr.   (N.Y.)   137; 

*  Christian  v.  Williams,  111  Mo.  429,  Duringer  v.  Moschino,  93  Ind.  495. 
S.  C.  20  S.W.  R.  96 ;  Van  Horn  v.  Great        ^  See  Steph.  PI.  22 ;    2  Am.  &  Eng. 

Western  Mfg.  Co.,  37  Kan.  523 ;  Byler  Encyc.  Law,  724. 

V.  Jones,  22  Mo.  App.  623 ;  Chubbuck        *  See  Gates  v.  Bloom,  149  Pa.  St.  107, 

V.  Cleveland,  37  Minn.  460,  S.  C.  5  Am.  S.C.  24Atl.  R.  184;  Burrichterv.  Cline, 

St.  R.  864;    Townsend  v.  Smith,   47  3  Wash.  135,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  R.  367;  He 

Wis.  623,  S.  C.  32  Am.  R.  793 ;  Steele  Vinich,  86  Cal.  70,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  628 ; 

V.  Bates,  2  Aik.  (Vt.)  338,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Paul  v.  Ward,  21  Ind.  211. 
Dec.  720,  and  note;  Williams  v.  Reed, 


§376  BRINGING    TIIK    ACTION PROCESS.  459 

ing  a  new  cause  of  action,'  and  the  same  rule  holds  good  as  to 
new  parties  where  a  supplemental  complaint  is  filed. ''^  So, 
where  the  supplemental  complaint  alleges  that  one  of  the  orig- 
inal defendants  has  acquired  a  new  interest  since  the  filing  of 
the  original  complaint,  it  has  been  held  that  a  new  summons 
must  be  issued  and  served  on  such  defendant  in  order  to  bind 
his  after-acquired  interest;^  but  this  decision  was  rendered  by 
a  divided  court,  and  its  soundness  may  well  be  doubted.  Un- 
der the  Illinois  statute  the  cross-bill  is  regarded  as  a  mere  ad- 
junct or  continuation  of  the  original  suit  and  new  process  is 
held  to  be  unnecessary.* 

§  376.  Alias  and  pluries  writs. — Where  process  is  returned 
without  service  for  the  reason  that  the  defendant  can  not  be 
found  in  the  bailiwick  of  the  officer  to  whom  it  is  issued, 
and  the  plaintiff  has  reason  to  believe  that  by  a  second  or 
other  writ  to  the  same  or  a  different  county  he  will  be  able  to 
obtain  service  upon  the  defendant,  an  alias  or  pluries  writ  may 
be  obtained  and  issued  for  that  purpose.  The  second  writ  is 
called  an  alias  writ  and  any  others  of  the  same  kind  thereafter 
issued  are  called  pluries  writs.  In  some  jurisdictions  the 
plaintiff  is  entitled  to  an  alias  writ  as  a  matter  of  right,  and 
the  clerk  issues  it  as  a  matter  of  course;^  but  in  other  States 
the  clerk  has  no  authority  to  issue  alias  or  pluries  writs  with- 
out leave  of  court,  and  it  is  safer  in  all  cases  to  obtain  an  order 

•  Boyd  r.  Fitch,  71  Ind.  306 ;  Hunter  also,  Kentucky  Eclectic  Inst.  v.  Gaines 

V.  Burnsville  Turnp.  Co.,  56  Ind.  213;  (Ky.),  1  S.  W.  R.  444;  Rigney  v.  Rig- 

Ballance  v.  Underbill,  3  Scam.  (111.)  ney,  127  N.  Y.  408,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R. 

453,  461 ;    Swift  v.  Brumfield,  76  Ind.  402. 

472;  Fletcher  v.  Holmes,  25  Ind.  458.  ^  j^artin  v.  Noble,  29  Ind.  216.  This 
See,  also,  Lowenstein  v.  Glidewell,  5  is  certainly  not  the  law  where  the  new 
Dill  (U.  S.),  325,  328;  Heath  v.  Erie  interest  is  acquired  by  purchase  pen- 
R'y  Co.,  9  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  316.  Not  dente  lite..  See  Shaw  r"  Bill,  95  U.  S.  10. 
necessary  where  the  original  com-  *  Fleece  i'.  Russell,  13  111.31 ;  Kings- 
plaint  fully  discloses  the  claim  set  up  bury  v.  Buckner,  134  U.  S.  650,  S.  C. 
in  the  cross  -  complaint.  Bevier  v.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  638. 
Kahn,  111  Ind.  200.  *  Cherry  r.  Mississippi  Ins.  Co.,  16 

"See  Shaw  v.  Bill,  95  U.  S.  10,  14;  Lea  (Tenu.),  292;    Gilmour  v.  Ford 

Morgan  v.  Morgan,  10  Ga.  297;    Dan-  (Tex.),  19  S.  W.  R.  442. 
iell's  Ch.  Pr.  (2d  Am.  ed.) ,  1680.     See, 


460  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  376 

of  court  for  the  issuance  of  the  writ.^  An  alias  writ  is  unnec- 
essary where  a  complaint  is  amended  after  service,  but  no  new 
cause  of  action  is  stated,^  although  the  contrary  has  been  held 
where  the  complaint  as  amended  stated  a  new  cause  of  action.^ 
Where  the  original  summons  correctly  states  the  amount  of 
the  plaintiff's  claim  a  clerical  error  in  the  alias  in  stating  the 
amount  will  not  render  the  proceedings  subject  to  collateral 
attack.'* 

'  Peck  V.  La  Roche,  86  Ga.  314,  S.  C.  ^  Kentucky  Eclectic  Inst.  v.  Gaines 

12S.  E.  R.  638.  (Ky.),  IS.  W.  R.  444. 

-  Schuyler  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bollong,  28  *  Richmond  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rudd^ 

Neb.  684,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R.  164.  88  Va.  648,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  361. 


CHAPTER  XL 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS. 


§  377.  Kinds  and  purpose. 

378.  Attachment — Generally. 

379.  When  attachment  will  lie. 

380.  Grounds  of  attachment. 

381.  Procedure  in  attachment. 

382.  Filing  under  attachment. 

I    383.  Property  subject  to  attachment. 

384.  Lien  of  attachment. 

385.  Dissolution  of  attachment. 

386.  Garnishment — (Tonerally. 

387.  Procetlure  in  garnishment. 

388.  Duty  and  liability  of  garnishee. 


§  389.  Ne  exeat. 

390.  Injunction — Generally. 

391.  When  injunction  lies. 

392.  Injunction — Procedure. 

393.  Receivers — Generally. 

394.  When  appointed. 

395.  Procedure inobtainingreceiver. 

396.  Lis  pendens — Notice. 

397.  Notice — Statutory. 

398.  Doctrine  of  relation. 

399.  Continuance  of  notice. 


§  377.  Kinds  and  purpose. — It  frequently  happens  that  an 
ordinary  action  instituted  hy  filing  a  complaint  and  issuing 
summons  would  be  ineffective  without  the  aid  of  some  further 
proceeding.  The  defendant  may  be  a  non-resident,  or  he  may 
be  removing  from  the  State;  he  may  fraudulently  secrete  or 
dispose  of  his  property  if  some  step  is  not  immediately  taken 
to  prevent  him  from  so  doing;  it  may  be  necessary  to  place  the 
property  in  custodia  Icgis  in  order  to  preserve  it  during  litiga- 
tion; it  may  be  necessary  to  enjoin  or  restrain  the  defendant 
from  doing  some  act  that  would  prevent  the  plaintiff  from  ob- 
taining redress  in  an  action  at  law;  it  may  be  necessary  to  give 
notice  of  the  pendency  of  the  action  in  order  to  prevent  inno- 
cent third  persons  from  acquiring  rights  which  might  other- 
wise be  superior  to  those  of  the  plaintiff,  or  the  like;  and  in 
many  such  cases  something  more  than  the  ordinary  process  of 
the  court  is  essential  in  order  to  secure  complete  justice  to  the 
plaintiff.  This  end  is  usually  accomplished  by  certain  pro- 
ceedings or  writs  fitted  to  tlie  particular  case,  which  are,  in 
their  nature,  auxiliary  or  ancillary  to  the  main  action.  The 
most  important  are  attachment  and  garnishment,  the  writs  of 

(  -iiU  ) 


462  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  378 

capias  andne  exeat,  injunctions,  proceedings  for  the  appointment 
of  a  receiver  and  lis  pendens  notices. 

§  378.  Attachment— Generally.— Attachment  is  a  statutory 
remedy  or  proceeding/  and,  as  the  statutes  in  the  different 
States  differ  greatly  in  regard  to  details  the  advocate  must  con- 
sult the  statute  and  decisions  of  his  own  State  in  order  to  de- 
termine the  specific  grounds  for  attachment  and  the  proper 
procedure,  but  the  general  principles  underlying  the  proceeding 
and  the  general  method  of  procedure  are  substantially  the  same 
in  nearly  all  jurisdictions.  It  has  been  defined  as  "a  provis- 
ional remedy  whereby  a  debtor's  property,  real  or  personal, 
or  any  interest  therein  capable  of  being  taken  under  a  levy  and 
execution,  is  placed  in  the  custody  of  the  law  to  secure  the  in- 
terests of  the  creditor  pending  the  determination  of  the  cause.  "^ 
It  partakes  largely  of  the  elements  of  proceedings  in  rem  as 
well  as  of  those  of  actions  in  personam  and  is  sometimes  called 
a  proceeding  in  the  nature  of  an  action  in  rem.  It  is,  however, 
personal  in  form  and  is  usually  preceded  or  accompanied  by  a 
summons,  but  it  is  auxiliary  or  ancillary  to  the  main  action 
and  binds  only  the  property  attached,  although  a  personal 
judgment  may  be  taken  in  the  main  action,  where  the  defend- 
ant has  been  personally  served.  If,  in  such  a  case,  no  prop- 
erty is  found,  the  action  may  proceed  as  a  personal  action,^ 
and  so  it  may  be  stated  generally  that  where  the  defendant  has 
been  personally  served  the  attachment  proceeding  may  be  dis- 
missed and  the  personal  action  prosecuted  to  judgment,  not- 
withstanding such  dismissal.*  But  if  the  defendant  is  a  non- 
resident and  does  not  appear  no  valid  and  effective  personal 
judgment  can   be  rendered  against  him,^  and  neither  can  a 

'  The  statute  should  Vje  strictly  con-        ^  1  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  894. 
strued  and  is  not  to  be  extended  by    See,  also,  Lowry  v.  Cady,  4  Vt.  504,  S. 


implication.  May  ■;;.  Baker,  15  111.  89 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  31  Fed.  R.  700 
Ketchin  v.  Landecker,  32  So.  Car.  155 
Denegre  v.  Milne,  10  La.  Ann.  324 
Caldwell  v.  Haley,  3  Texas,  317 
Pool  V.  Webster,  3  Mete.  (Ky.)  278 


C.  24  Am.  Dec.  628. 

^  Drake  on  Attachment,  §  5. 

*  Erwin  v.  Heath,  50  Miss.  795;  Mil- 
ler V.  Ewing,  8  Sm.  &  M.  421;  Hen- 
drix  V.  Cawthorn,  71  Ga.  742. 

^  Eastman  v.  Wadleigh,  65  Me.  251, 


Wade  on  Attachment,  §§  2,  3.  S.  C.  20  Am.  Rep.  695;  Eliot  v,  Mc- 


§379  AUXIMAIIV    rROCRKDINGS.  403 

judgment  for  the  sale  of  the  property  attached  be  rendered 
where  the  cause  of  action  is  one  in  which  an  attachment  is  not 
authorized.^  So  far  as  the  property  itself  is  concerned,  how- 
ever, jurisdiction  is  generally  obtained,  in  case  of  u  non-resi- 
dent, by  complying  with  the  statute  and  giving  notice  by  pub- 
lication.'^ But  if  no  property  is  found,  and  no  personal  service 
is  had,  no  judgment  can  be  rendered  against  a  non-resident  de- 
fendant who  does  not  appear.^ 

§  379.  When  attachment  will  lie. — As  a  general  rule  attach- 
ment will  not  lie  in  actions  ex  delicto,^  and  this  is  true  although 
the  tort  might  have  been  waived  and  an  action  brought  for 
breach  of  contract.^  But  the  mere  fact  that  a  tort  is  committed 
in  connection  with  a  breach  of  contract  will  not  necessarily 
prevent  an  action  for  the  breach  of  contract  and  an  attachment 
in  aid  thereof.  If  the  tort  is  waived  and  an  action  is  properly 
brought  for  breach  of  the  contract,  express  or  implied,  a  writ 
of  attachment  will  issue  upon  a  proper  showing  and  compli- 
ance with  the  statute.'''  In  some  jurisdictions  attachment  will 
not  lie  unless  the  action  is  for  liquidated  damages  arising  from 
breach  of  contract,  and  the  debt  must  be  an  actually  subsisting 

Cormick,  144  Mass.  10;  King  r. Vance,  Mudge  v.  Steinhart,  78  Cal.  34,  S.  C. 

46  Ind,  246;  Banta  v.  Wood,  32  Iowa,  12  Am.  St.  R.  17;    Babcock  v.  Briggs, 

469;  Webster  v.  Reid,  11  How.  437;  52  Cal.  502;    Ferris  v.  Ferris,  25  Vt. 

Robinson  v.  AVard,  8  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  100;    Grossman  v.  Lindsley,  42  How. 

86,  S.  C.  5  Am.  Dec.  327;  Eastman  v.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  107;  Porter  r.  Hildebrand, 

Dearborn,  63  N.  H.  364 ;  Wade  on  At-  14  Pa.  St.  129 ;  Raver  v.  Webster,  3  la. 

tachment,  §  267;  ante,  §  243.  502;    Hynson  v.  Taylor,  3  Ark.  552; 

^Mudget'.  Steinhart,  78  Cal.  34,  S.  Stanley   v.   Sutherland,  54   Ind.  339; 

C.  12  Am.  St.  R.  17.  Drake  on  Attachment,  §  10.     But,  un- 

*  King  V.  Vance,  46  Ind.  246 ;  note  der  some  of  the  statutes,  it  seems  that 

to  Cousins  V.  Alworth,  10  L.  R.  A.  504 ;  the  writ  may  issue  in  an  action  ex  de- 

Wade  on  Attachment,   §  267,  et  seq.;  Hcto.     Sturdevant  r.  Tuttle,  22  Ohio 

ante,  §243.  St.  Ill;    Creasser  r.  Young,  31  Ohio 

3  Cooper  V.  Reynolds,  10  W^all.  308;  St.  57;    Tahoe  v.  :Mining  Co.,  14  Fed. 

Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714;  Bruce  R-  636. 

r.  Cloutman,  45  N.  H.  37;  Abbott  v.  »  Wade   on   Attachment,   §12;    At- 

Sheppard,   44   Mo.   273;    Clymore   v.  lantic,   etc.,  Ins.   Co.  v.  McLoon,  48 

Williams,  77111.618;  Cooperr.  Smith,  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  27. 

25  Iowa,  269.  e  Fuel   Co.    v.    Tuck,   53   Cal.   304; 

*Griswold    v.    Sharpe,   2    Cal.    17;  Hunt    v.   Norris,  4  Mart.  (La.)  517; 


464 


THE    WOKK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  380 


debt  and  not  a  mere  contingent  and  uncertain  liability.^  It  is 
sometimes  provided,  however,  that  the  debt  need  not  be  actu- 
ally due  at  the  time  of  the  application  for  a  writ  of  attachment.^ 

§  380.  Grounds  of  attachment. — Mere  insolvency  or  inabil- 
ity of  a  debtor  to  pay  his  debts  is  not  sufficient  to  authorize 
the  attachment  of  his  property.^  As  a  general  rule  it  is  au- 
thorized only  where  ordinary  process  is  ineffective,  and  some 
one  or  more  of  the  statutory  causes  must  exist.  It  is  usually 
authorized  where  a  debtor  absents  himself  *  or  absconds  from 
the  State,'''  where  he  conceals  himself,^  where  he  is  a  non-resi- 
dent,'^  where  he  is  removing,  or  about  to  remove,  his  property 
from  the  State, ^  where  he  is  fraudulently  disposing  of  his  pro- 


Penna.  R.  E,.  Co.  v.  Peoples,  31 
Ohio  St.  537 ;  Wade  on  Attachment, 
§22. 

'  Taylor  v.  Drane,  13  La.  62 ;  Harrod 
V.  Burgess,  5  Rob.  (La.)  449;  Benson 
V.  Campbell,  6  Port.  (Ala.)  455.  See, 
also,  Tignor  v.  Bradley,  32  Ark.  781 ; 
Henderson  v.  Thornton,  37  Miss.  448, 
S.  C.  75  Am.  Dec.  70. 

^  Drake  on  Attachment,  §31,  et  seq. 

3  Parmer  v.  Keith,  16  Neb.  91. 

*  This  does  not  mean  a  mere  tem- 
porary absence,  but  it  must  be  such  as 
prevents  the  service  of  process  or  oth- 
erwise shows  an  intention  to  delay  or 
injure  the  creditor.  Fuller  v.  Bryan, 
20  Pa.  St.  144;  Morgan  v.  Avery,  7 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  656;  Kingsland  v. 
Worsham,  15  Mo.  657;  Watson  v. 
Pierpoint,  7  Mart.  (La.)  413;  Mandel 
I'.  Peet,  18  Ark.  236. 

°  As  to  who  is  an  absconding  debtor, 
see  Bennett  v.  Avant,  2  Sneed  (Tenn.) , 
152;  Stouffer  v.  Niple,  40  Md.  477; 
Ives  V.  Curtiss,  2  Root,  133 ;  Boardman 
V.  Bickford,  2  Aik.  (Vt.)  345. 

*  As  to  what  is  concealment  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute,  see  Young 
V.  Nelson,  25  111.  565;  Evans  v.  Saul, 
8  Mart.  N.  S.  (La.)  247;  North  v.  Mc- 


Donald, 1  Biss.  57 ;  Wolcott  v.  Hen- 
drick,  6  Tex.  406 ;  Winkler  v.  Barthel, 
6  Bradw.  (111.)  111. 

^  As  to  who  are  non-residents  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute,  see  In  re 
Wrigley,  8  Wend.(N.  Y.)  134;  Brown 
V.  Ashbough,  40  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
260;  Moore  v.  Holt,  10  Gratt.  (Va.) 
284;  Morgan  v.  Nunes,  54  Miss.  308; 
Haggart  v.  Morgan,  5  N.  Y.  422,  S.  C. 
55  Am.  Dec.  350;  Wheeler  v.  Cobb,  75 
N.  Car.  21 ;  Carden  v.  Carden,  107  N. 
Car.  214,  S.  C.  22  Am.  St.  R.  876,  and 
note;  Hanson  v.  Graham,  82  Cal.  631, 
S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  127;  note  to  Cousins 
V.  Alworth,  10  L.  R.  A.  504;  Munroe 
V.  Williams,  19  L.  R.  A.  665,  and  note ; 
Wallace  v.  Castle,  68  N.  Y.  370;  Per- 
rine  v.  Evans,  35  N.  J.  L.  221 ;  Rayne 
V.  Taylor,  10  La.  Ann.  726.  But  "resi- 
dence" and  "domicile"  are  not  syn- 
onymous, and  if  the  debtor  has  a  resi- 
dence in  the  jurisdiction  so  that  he 
can  be  served  with  process,  his  prop- 
erty can  not  be  attached  on  the  ground 
of  non-residence.  Stout  v.  Leonard, 
37  N.  J.  L.  492;  Wells  v.  People,  44 
111.  40;  Waples  on  Attachment,  36; 
Drake  on  Attachment,  §  58. 

*  See  Warder  V.  Thrilkeld,  52  la.  134 ; 


§381 


AUXILIAUY    PROCEEDINGS. 


465 


perty,  or  about  to  do  so,'  and,  in  some  States,  \vli:re  the  debt 
has  been  l'rau<hik'ntly  contracted.'"^ 

§  381.  Procedui'O  in  attachment. —  It  is  a  universal  require- 
ment that  before  a  writ  of  attachment  shall  be  issued  the 
plaintiff  must  show  by  afhdavit  the  existence  of  one  or  more 
of  the  statutory  grounds.  This  is  generally  held  to  be  juris- 
dictional.^ But  it  has  been  held  that  a  verified  complaint  con- 
taining all  that  would  be  required  in  an  affidavit  may  be  so 
drawn  as  to  serve  the  purposes  buth  of  a  complaint  and  an  af- 
fidavit.'* And  an  affidavit  which  is  defective  in  some  respects 
may,  nevertheless,  be  sufficient  to  support  the  proceedings  as 
against  a  collateral  attack.^  The  requisites  of  the  affidavit  are 
usually  prescribed  by  statute,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  attempt 
to  consider  them  here.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  affidavit 
should  comply  with  the  statutory  requirements.^     In  addition 


Rice  V.  Pertuis,  40  Ark.  157 ;  Russell 
V.  Wilson,  18  La.  3(57 ;  White  v. Wilson, 
10  111.  21 ;  Friedlander  v.  Pollock,  5 
Cold.  (Tenn.)  490;  Hunter  v.  Soward, 
15  Neb.  215 ;  Durr  v.  Ilervey,  44  Ark. 
301,  S.  C.  51  Am.  R.  594;  Myers  v. 
Farrell,  47  Miss.  281 ;  Simon  v.  Sevier 
€o.,  etc.,  Ass'n  (Ark.),  14  S.  AV.  R. 
1101 ;  Lowenstein  v.  Bew,  68  Miss. 
265,  S.  C.  24  Am.  St.  R.  269,  and  note. 

'  See  Spencer  v.  Deagle,  34  Mo.  455; 
Chouteau  v.  Sherman,  11  Mo.  385; 
Taylor  r.  Kuhuke,  26  Kan.  132 ;  Rosen- 
feld  V.  Howard,  15  P>arb.  (N.  Y.)  546; 
Donnell  v.  Jones,  17  Ala.  689,  S.  C.  52 
Am.  Dec.  194;  Bullene  r.  Smith,  73 
Mo.  151 ;  Hernsheim  v.  Levy,  32  La. 
Ann.  340;  Robinson  Notion  Co.  v. 
Ormsby,  33  Neb.  655,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R. 
952;  Orr,  etc..  Shoe  Co.  v.  Harris,  82 
Tex.  273,  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  308 ;  Crow 
V.  Lemon,  etc.,  Co.,  69  Miss.  799,  11 
So.  R.  110. 

*  ]\Lirqueze  v.  Sontheimer,  59  Miss. 
430;  AVachter  v.  Famachon,  62  Wis. 
117;  Rosenthal  v.  Wehe,  58  Wis.  621; 

30 


Young  V.  Cooper,  12  Neb.  610 ;  Sturde- 
vant  V.  Tuttle,  22  Ohio  St.  Ill ;  Ellison 
I'.  Bernstein,  60  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  145; 
Mackey  v.  Hyatt,  42  Mo.  App.  443. 

'Earl  V.  Camp,  16  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
562;  Staples  r.  Fairchild,  3  N.  Y.  41 ; 
Hargadine  v.  Van  Horn,  72  Mo.  370; 
Matthews  v.  Densmore,  43  Mich.  461. 

*Dunn  V.  Crocker,  22  Ind.  324; 
Miller  v.  Chandler,  29  La.  Ann.  88. 
See,  also,  Fremont  r.  Fulton,  103  Ind. 
393;  Eudel  v.  Leibrock,  33  Ohio  St. 
254;  Scott  v.  Doneghy,  17  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  321;  Shaffer  v.  Sandwall,  33 
la.  579. 

*  Weber  r.Weitling,  3  (C.  E.  Green), 
N.  J.  Eq.  441 ;  Russell  i-.  Work,  35  N. 
J.  L.  316 ;  Moresi  v.  Swift,  15  Nev.  215 ; 
Hardin  v.  Lee,  51  Mo.  241 ;  Crowell  r. 
Johnson,  2  Neb.  146;  Boothe  «.  Estes, 
16  Ark.  104. 

«Shockley  v.  Bulloch,  IS  Ga.  283; 
Lanikin  v.  Douglass,  27  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
517;  Miller  v.  Brinkerhoff,  4  Denio 
(N.  Y.),  118.  S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec.  242; 
Emmitt  v.  Yeigh,  12  Ohio  St.  335 ;  Rey- 


466  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  382 

to  the  affidavit  the  pUiintiff  is  generally  required  to  execute  a 
bond  as  a  preliminar}^  to  the  issuance  of  the  writ,  and  it  has 
been  held  that  a  deposit  of  money  can  not  be  made  in  lieu  of 
the  statutory  bond.^  The  bond  is  ordinarily  required  to  be 
conditioned  that  the  plaintiff  shall  prosecute  the  suit  to  effect 
and  pay  all  costs  and  damages  occasioned  by  the  wrongful  su- 
ing out  of  the  attachment;  but  whatever  the  form  may  be  it 
should,  at  least,  substantially  follow  the  statute.^  In  some 
States  an  agent  or  attorney  may  execute  the  bond  and  affidavit, 
in  others  they  must  be  executed  by  the  plaintiff.^  The  sureties 
should  reside  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  which  grants 
the  writ.  In  some  jurisdictions  the  bond  should  be  made  to 
the  State  as  obligee,  but  in  most  jurisdictions  the  defendant  is 
the  obligee.  The  amount  of  the  bond  is  regulated  by  statute, 
and  a  greater  amount  than  that  prescribed  will  do  no  harm,* 
but  a  less  sum  may  be  fatal. ^  The  statutory  preliminaries 
having  been  complied  with,  the  writ  issues. 

»  §  382.  Filing  under  attachment. — It  is  sometimes  provided 
that  any  creditor,  upon  filing  his  affidavit  and  bond,  as  re- 
quired of  the  attaching  creditor,  may,  at  any  time  before  final 
judgment,  make  himsoif  a  party  and  become  entitled  to  share 
in  the  proceeds  by  also  filing  his  complaint  and  proving  his 
claim. ^  And  when  this  has  been  done  it  has  been  held  that 
the  dismissal  of  the  original  proceeding  will  not  affect  the  claim 
filed  thereunder.'     It  has  also  been  held  that  no  additional 

burn  V.  Brackett,  2  Kan.  227,  S.  C.  83        *  Fellows  v.  Miller,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

Am.  Dec.  457;  McCollem  v.  White,  23  231;    Bourne  v.  Hocher,  11  B.  Mon. 

Ind.  43;    Delaplain  v.  Armstrong,  21  (Ky.)  23;    Shockley  v.  Davis,  17  Ga. 

W.  Va.  211;    Biddle  v.  Black,  99  Pa.  177,  S.  C.  63  Am.  Dec.  233. 
St.  380.  ^  Marnine  v.   Murphy,  8  Ind.  272 ; 

"Bate  V.  McDowell,  48  N.  Y.  Sup.  Martin  ».  Thompson,  3  Bibb.  (Ky.)  252. 
Ct.  219.  ^  As  to  what  is  required,  and  the 

*  Bank    v.    Fitzpatrick,  4    Humph,  sufficiency  of  the  pleading,  see,  gen- 

(Tenn.)  311 ;   Love  v.  Fairfield,  10  111.  erally,  Gilly  v.  Breckenridge,  2  Blackf. 

303;    Wade  on  Attachment,  §103,  et  (Ind.)  100;  Sturgis  v.  Rogers,  26  Ind. 

seq,  1 ;  Cooper  v.  Metzger,  74  Ind.  544. 

nVade  on  Attachment,  §§105,  106;        'Ryan   v.    Burkam,    42    Ind.    507; 

Best  V.  Johnson,  12  Am.  St.  R.  41,  and  State  v.  Baldwin,  10  Biss.  C.  C.  165. 
note. 


§383  AL-XILIAKV    I'liOCKKDINGS.  467 

summons  or  writ  of  attachment  need  be  i.ssued  on  sucli  claim.' 
The  lien  of  the  claim  so  filed  relates  back  to  the  time  of  the 
lien  of  the  original  attachment,^  and  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
the  projK'rty  are  distributed  pro  rata  among  the  creditors  whose 
claims  have  been  allowed.-^  But,  in  the  absence  of  such  a 
statute,  attaching  creditors  take  rank  and  are  entitled  to  satis- 
faction according  to  the  dates  of  the  service  of  their  attach- 
ments,^ and  where  the  first  attachment  has  been  levied  the 
goods  in  the  custody  of  the  officer  can  not  be  seized  by  another 
officer  upon  a  subsequent  writ.-^' 

§  383.  Property  subject  to  attachment. — As  a  general  rule 
any  property  subject  to  execution  may  be  attached/'  This,  of 
course,  includes  real  estate'^  as  well  as  personal  property.  But 
in  either  case  the  attachment  only  operates  upon  the  interest 
of  the  debtor  at  the  time  of  the  attachment.^  So,  it  has  been 
held,  where  property  is  perishable  or  of  such  a  nature  that  an 
attachment  would  result  in  producing  a  great  sacrifice  and  in- 
jury to  the  debtor  without  any  corresponding  benefit  to  the 
creditor  the  writ  should  be  refused.'^  And  property  already  in 
custodia  legis  can  not  be  attached. ^° 

^Schmidt  v.   Colley,   29   Ind.    120;  Am.  Dec.  237.     Property  exempt  from 

Taylor  v.  Elliott,  51  Ind.  37-5.  execution  can  not  be  attached.    Em- 

*  Fee  V.  Moore,  74  Ind.  319;  Ryan  r.  erson  v.   Bacon,   58   Mich.  526.     But 

Burkam,  42  Ind.  507.  property, not  exempt  when  attached 

'  Compton  V.  Crone,   58   Ind.   lOG;  can  not  be  rendered  so  by  the  debtor's 

Lexington,    etc.,   Co.   v.   Ford    Plate  subsequently  disposing  of  his  other 

Glass  Co.,  84  Ind.  516.  property.     Kilpatrick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cal- 

♦Tappan   r.    Harrison,    2   Humph,  lender  (Neb.),  52  N.  W.  R.  403. 

(Tenn.)  172;  Murray  v.  Gibson,  2  La.  '  Isham   r.    Downer,   8   Conn.   282; 

Ann.  311;    Ginsberg  v.  Pohl,  35  :Md.  Munroe  r.  Luke,  19  Pick.  (Mass.)  39; 

505;  De  Wolf  v.  IMurphy,  11  R.  I.  630;  Argyle  v.  Dwinel,  29  Me.  29. 

Hagan  v.  Lucas,  10  Pet.  (U.  S.)  400;  «  Drake  on  Attachment,  §245;  Wade 

Altas  Bank  r.  Nahant  Bank,  23  Pick,  on    Attachment,     §  264;    Crocker   r. 

480;    Patterson  r.  Stephenson,  77  Mo.  Pierce,  31  Me.  177;  Ilandley  r.  Pfister, 

329.  39  Cal.  283,  S.  C.  2  Am.  R.  449. 

6  Vinton  v.  Bradford,  13  Mass.  114,  »  Wallace  v.  Barker,  8  Vt.  440:  Oy- 

S.  C.  7  Am.  Dec.  119;    Beers  v.  Place,  stead  r.  Shed,  12  :Mass.  506;  Bradford 

36  Conn.  578;   Corning  v.  Dreyfur,  20  v.  Gillespie,  8  Dana  (Ky.),67;  Norris 

Fed.  R.  426.  v.   Watson,   2   Foster   (N.   H.),  364; 

6  Drake  on   Attachment,  §§  2,  232,  Bond  r.  Ward,  7  Mass.  123. 

263;  Wadeon  Attachment,  §§249.  261;  '"Taylor  r.  CarrA'l.  24  Pa.  St.  259; 

Roby  V.  Labuzan,  21   Ahi.  60,  S.  C.  56  Drake  on   Attachment,  §  281.     Com- 


468  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  384 

§  384.  Lien  of  attachment. — Although  the  attachment  is, 
in  a  sense  at  least,  merely  provisional  and  contingent  upon  the 
recoveiy  of  judgment  in  the  main  action,  yet,  according  to  the 
weight  of  autliority,  a  lien  may  be  acquired  before  judgment.^ 
In  order  to  secure  it,  however,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  a  writ 
of  attachment  shall  have  been  issued  or  even  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  proper  officer;  the  writ  must  be  actually  levied 
upon  the  property  of  the  debtor.^  Where  property  is  attached 
and  sold  under  a  judgment  the  title  of  the  purchaser  relates  to 
the  date  of  the  attachment.'^  When  the  lien  has  once  been  ac- 
quired it  can  be  lost  or  destroyed  only  by  dissolution  of  the  at- 
tachment.^ This  is  the  rule,  at  least,  as  against  the  defendant; 
but  it  has  been  held  that  subsequent  purchasers  in  good  faith, 
and,  it  seems,  other  creditors,  may  obtain  rights  where  pos- 
session of  the  property  is  abandoned  by  the  officer  and  it  is 
left  in  the  hands  of  the  defendant.^  It  is  generally  provided, 
however,  that  the  officer  may  leave  the  property  with  the  de- 
fendant upon  receiving  from  the  latter  a  forthcoming  or  deliv- 

pare  Conovcr  v.  Ruckman,  33  N.  J.  Seibert,  23  Mo.  85 ;  Oldham  v.  Schriv- 

Eq.  303;  Wehle  v.  Conner,  83  N.  Y.  ener,  3  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  579;  Porter  v. 

231.  Pico,  55  Cal.  165;  Cockey  v.  Milne,  16 

'  Jackson  v.  Ramsey,   15  Am.  Dec.  Md.   200 ;  note   to   Franklin  Bank  v. 

242,  ai.d  note.     Contra,  Ex  parte  Fos-  Bachelder,  39  Am.  Dec.  601,  607. 

ter,  2  Story,  131.  *  Franklin   Bank  v.   Bachelder,    23 

'  Kuhn  ?;.  Graves,  9  Iowa,  303 ;  Zieg-  Me.  60,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  601,  and 

enhager  v.  Doe,  1  Ind.  290;  Gates  v.  note;  Davenport  v.   Lacon,  17  Conn. 

Bushnell,  9Conn.  530;  Taffts  V.  Man-  278;    Smith  v.   Bradstreet,    16    Pick, 

love,  14  Cal.  47;    Lynch  v.  Crary,  52  (Mass.)  264;    Franklin  Fire  Ins.  Co. 

N.  Y.  181 ;  Learned  v.  Vandenburgh,  v.  West,  8  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  350;  Mur- 

8  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  77;  Tomlinson  v.  ray  u.  Gibson,  2  La.  Ann.  311 ;  Hervey 

Stiles,  4  Dutch.  (N.  J.)  201;    Pond  v.  v.  Champion,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.)  569; 

.   Griffin,  1  Ala.  678;  note  to  Franklin  Harrison  v.  Trader,  29  Ark.  85;  Grigg 

Bank?'.  Bachelder,  39  Am.  Dec.  601,  v.  Banks,  59  Ala.  311;  Ward  v.  Mc- 

607.     But  under  some  statutes  it  is  Kenzie,  33  Texas,  297,  S.  C.  7  Am.  R. 

made  a  lien  from  the  time  it  is  placed  261. 

in  the  hands  of  the  officer.     Shirk  v.  ^  Gower  v.  Stevens,  19  Maine,  92; 

Wilson,  13  Ind.  129 ;  Moore  v.  Fitz,  15  Thompson  v.  Baker,  74  Me.  48 ;  Chad- 

Ind.  43;  Fee  v.  Moore,  74  Ind.  319.  bourne  v.  Sumner,  16  N.  H.  129;  San- 

^Tyrell  v.  Roundtree,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.)  ford  v.  Boring,  12  Cal.  539;  Gordon  v. 

464;  Brown  r.  Williams,  31  Me.  403;  Jenney,  16  Mass.465;  Taintor  ?).  Will- 

Rodgers  v.  Bonner,  45  N.Y.  379;  Han-  iams,  7  Conn.  271;    Boynton  v.  War- 

nahs  V.  Felt,  15  Iowa,  141 ;  Lackey  v.  ren,  99  Mass.  172. 


§  385  AUXILIARY    PROCEKDINOS.  409 

ery  bond  for  the  return  of  the  property  in  case  judgment  is 
rendered  against  him,  and  this  does  not  dissolve  the  attacli- 
ment  or  affect  the  lien.^  By  giving  such  a  bond  the  defend- 
ant, it  seems,  estops  himself  from  denying  that  the  property  is 
subject  to  attacliment  or  the  levy  valid, '-^  Init  it  has  been  hold 
that  he  may  afterwards  move  to  set  aside  the  attachment.^ 

§  385.  Dissolution  of  attachment. — The  attachment  is  dis- 
solved by  linal  judgment  for  the  defendant  in  the  main  action,^ 
even  though  it  be  a  judgment  of  non-suit.^  So,  defects  and 
irregularities  in  the  proceedings  may  be  cause  for  dissolving 
the  attachment  upon  motion.^  And,  in  most  of  the  States,  it 
may  also  be  dissolved  by  the  defendant  giving  a  ])ond,  with 
surety,  for  the  payment  of  any  judgment  that  may  be  recovered 
against  him  in  the  action.''  So,  the  defendant  may  obtain  a 
dissolution  of  the  attachment  by  showing  that  the  alleged 
grounds  therefor  do  not  exist.^  It  has  also  been  held  that  the 
death  of  the  defendant  and  abatement  of  the  suit  will  dissolve 

■  Gass  V.  Williams,  46  Ind.  253 ;  Ty-  Halev.  Cummings,  3  Ala.398 ;  Wheeler 

ler  V.  Safford,  24  Kan.  580.     In  some  v.  Nichols,  32  Me.  233. 

jurisdictions  a  mere  receipt  is  given.  *  Brown  r.  Harris,  2  G.  Greene,  505, 

Perry  v.  Somerby,  57  Me.  552;  Lewis  S.  C.  52  Am.  Dec.  535;    Danforth  v. 

V.  Webber,  116  Mass.  450;    Cornell  v.  Carter,  4  la.  230. 

Dakin,  38  X.  Y.  253.  6  Brace  r.  Conyers,  54  Ga.  678 ;  Clark 

»  Morgan  v.  Furst,  4  Mart.  X.  S.  (La.)  v.  Roberts,  1  111.  285. 

116,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  166;  Bowley  v.  'Cole  v.  Parker,  7  la.  167,  S.  C.  71 

Angire,  49  Vt.  41 ;    People  v.  Reeder,  Am.  Dec.  439;  Winter  r.  Kinnev,  1  N. 

25  N.  Y.  302 ;    Scanlan  v.  O'Brien,  21  Y.  365 ;  Shirley  v.  Byrnes,  34  Tex.  625 ; 

Minn.  434;    Haggart  v.  Morgan,  5  N.  Barry  v.  Foyles,  1  Pet.  (U.S.)  311; 

Y.  422,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  350.  Hills  v.  :\roore,  40  :\Iich.  210;    Pavne 


3  r.. 


Garbutt  r.  Ilanff,  15  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  r.  Snell,  3  Mo.  409;  McCombsr.  Allen, 

Y.)    189.      Compare   Morrison  v.  Al-  82X.Y.  114;  Ed.ly  r.  Moore,  23  Kan. 

phin,  23    Ark.  136;  Paddock  v.  Mat-  113;  Bronner /•.  Mover,  98  Pa.  St.  274; 

thews,  3  Mich.  18.  Hill  r.  Harding.  93  111.  77;    Dunn  v. 

*Suydam    v.    Hnggerford,   23   Pick.  Crocker,  22  Ind.  324. 

(Mass.)  465;    Clapp  v.  Bell,  4  Mass.  «  Lovier  v.  Gilpin,  6   Dana   (Ky.), 

99;    Ouzts  V.  Seabrook,  47   Ga.  359;  321;     Drake   on   Attachment,   §  399; 

Shulenberg  v.  Farwell,  84  111.  400. 


470  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  386 

the  attachment.^     But  mere  bankruptcy  of  the  defendant  will 
not  dissolve  it.- 

§  386.  Garnishment — Generally. — Garnishment  is,  in  effect, 
the  attachment  of  property  of  the  defendant  in  the  hands  of  a 
stranger.  Like  attachment  proper  it  is  a  creature  of  statute, 
and  the  statute  should  be  carefully  followed.^  It  is  auxiliary 
or  ancillary  to  the  principal  case  and  furnishes  a  more  effectual 
means  for  the  recovery  of  debts  or  claims  by  notifying  or  warn- 
ing one  who  is  indebted  to  the  defendant  or  has  property  be- 
longing to  him  to  appear  and  make  answer  as  to  such  indebt- 
edness or  as  to  the  possession  of  such  property,  and  not  to  pay 
such  indebtedness  or  surrender  the  property  until  further  or- 
der of  the  court.  It  is  usually  permitted  only  in  cases  in 
which  an  attachment  would  be  authorized,^  and  binds  the 
garnishee  as  to  the  debt  or  property  in  his  hands  from  the  date 
of  the  service  of  the  writ.^  Many  Of  the  statutes  provide  that 
any  person  being  indebted  to  the  defendant  or  having  money 
or  other  property  of  the  defendant  in  his  possession  or  under 
his  control  may  be  garnished,  and  this  provision  would  seem 
to  be  broad  enough  to  include  agents  and  fiduciaries  gener- 
ally,^ as  well  as  others,  but  it  has  not  always  been  so  construed, 

^Upham    V.   Dodge,    11   R.  I.   621;  Mich.  358;  Schindler  v.  Smith,  18  La. 

Collins  rj.  Duffy,  7  La.  Ann.  39;   Dav-  Ann.  476;   Wolf  v.  Tappan,  5  Dana 

enport  v.  Tilton,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  320;  (Ky.),  361.     In  some  States,  however, 

Hensley  v.  Morgan,  47  Cal.  622;  Row-  it  is  held  that  such  statutes  should  be 

her  ».  Hill,  60  Me.  172;    Sweringen  i;.  liberally  construed   for  the   advance- 

Eberius,  7  Mo.  421,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  mentof  the  remedy.     Bacon  Academy 

463.     Contra,  Smith  v.  Warden,  35  N.  v.  Dewolf,  26  Conn.  602;  Treadway  v. 

J.  L.  346;    Moore  tJ.  Thayer,  10  Barb.  Andrews,  20   Conn.   384;    Hannibal, 

(N.  Y.)  258;  Lord  v.  Allen,  34  la.  281.  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Crane,  102  111.  249; 

*  Franklin   Bank  v.   Bachelder,   23  Mansfield  v.  New  England,  etc.,  Co., 

Me.  60,  S.  C.  39  Am.  Dec.  601,  and  58  Me.  35,  38;    Fisher  v.  Hervey,  6 

note ;  Batchelder  v.  Putnam,  54  N.  H.  Col.  16. 

84,  S.  C.  20  Am.  R.  115;    Munson  v.  *  See  Hill  v.  Whitney,  16  Vt.  461; 

Railroad  Co.,  120  Mass.  81,  S.  C.  21  ante,  §§379,  380. 

Am.  R.  499.     Contra,  Foster's  Case,  2  ^  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Armstrong,  101 

Story,  131.  Ind.  244;    Simpson  v.  Potter,  18  Ind. 

=»  Gibbon  v.  Bryan,  3  111.  App.  298;  429;  Brashear  v.  West,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

Black  V.  Brisbin,  3  Minn.  360,  S.  C.  608;  Emanuel  v.  Bridger,  L.  R.,  9  Q. 

74  Am.  Dec.  762 ;    Ferris  v.  Ferris,  25  B.  286 ;  Holmes  v.  Tutton,  5  El.  &  B.  65. 

Vt.  100;  Ford  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  50  « See  Halbert  v.  Stinson,  6  Blackf. 


^386 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDIXGS. 


471 


and,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  provision,  executors,  adminis- 
trators, guardians,  and  the  like,  can  not  be  garnished,*  nor  can 
a  mere  agent  of  the  defendant  for  money  held  by  him  for  his 
principal.^  So,  sheriffs  and  public  officers  are  usually  exempt 
from  garnishment  as  to  property  in  custodia  legis  or  held  by 
the  officer  in  his  official  capacity.^  Private  corporations  may 
be  garnished,'*  and  in  many  States  provision  is  made  for  reach- 
ing the  shares  of  corporate  stock  belonging  to  the  defendant; 
but  it  is  generally  held  that  a  city  or  other  municipal  corpora- 
tion can  not  be  garnished.^     So,  in  the  absence  of  any  statu- 


(Ind.)  398 ;  Simonds  r.  Harris,  92  Ind. 
605 ;  Norton  i'.  Norton,  43  Ohio  St.  509 ; 
Lyman  v.  Wood,  42  Vt.  113;  Coble  v. 
Nonemaker,  78  Pa.  St.  501 ;  Hoyt  v. 
Christie,  51  Vt.  48. 

'  Brooks  V.  Cook,  8  Mass. 246 ;  Barnes 
V.  Treat,  7  Mass.  271;  Nickerson  v. 
Chase,  122  Mass.  296 ;  Norton  v.  Clark, 
18  Nev.  247;  Whitehead  v.  Coleman, 
31  Gratt.  (Va.)  784;  Hansen  v.  But- 
ler, 48  Me.  81 ;  Conway  v.  Arming- 
ton,  11  R.  I.  116;  Case,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Miracle,  54  Wis.  295.  See,  also,  Hoag 
r.  Hoag,55N.  H.  172 ;  Knight  r.  Clyde, 
12  R.  I.  119;  Belknap  v.  Gibbens,  13 
Mete.  (Mass.)  471.  So,  as  a  general 
rule,  trust  funds  are  not  subject  to 
gai-nishiuent.  Keyser  v.  Mitchell,  67 
Pa.  St.  473 ;  White  v.  Jenkins,  16  Mass. 
62 ;  White  v.  White,  30  Vt.  338 ;  Mor- 
rill V.  Raymond,  28  Kan.  415,  S.  C.  42 
Am.  R.  167;  Hurd  v.  Trust  Co.,  63 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  314. 

*  McDonald  v.  Gillett,  69  :\re.  271 ; 
Hall  V.  Filter  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Phila.  (Pa.) 
370;  Flanagan  v.  Wood,  33  Vt.  332; 
First  Nat.  Bank  r.  Railroad  Co.,  45 
la.  120 ;  Neuer  r.  O'Fallon,  18  Mo.  277, 
S.  C.  59  Am.  Dec.  313. 

'  Pollard  V.  Ross,  5  ^lass.  319 ;  Hill 
V.  Railroad  Co.,  14  AVis.  291,  S.  C.  80 
Am.  Dec.  783;  Waite  v.  Osborne.  11 
Me.  185;  Glenn  v.  Gill,  2  Md.  1; 
Tremper  I".  Brooks,40Mich.  333 ;  Lodor 


V.  Baker,  39  N.  J.  L.  49 ;  Averill  v. 
Tucker,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  544.  Com- 
pare Hurlburt  v.  Hicks,  17  Vt.  193,  S. 
C.  44  Am.  Dec.  329 ;  Gaither  v.  Ballew, 

4  Jones  (N.  Car.),  488,  S.  C.  69  Am. 
Dec.  763.  An  attorney  may,  however, 
be  subject  to  garnishment.  Hancock 
V.  Colyer,  99  Mass.  187,  S.  C.  96  Am. 
Dec.  730;  Ayer  f.  Brown,  77  Me.  195; 
Mann  r.  Buford,  3  Ala.  312,  S.  C.  37 
Am.  Dec.  691. 

*  Knox  V.  Protection  Ins.  Co.,  9 
Conn.  430,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  33 ;  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Gallahue,  12 
Gratt.  655,  S.  C.  65  Am.  Dec.  254 ;  Boyd 
V.  Chesapeake  Canal  Co.,  17  Md.  195; 
Taylor  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

5  Iowa,  114 ;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Co- 
hen, 9  Mo.  421 ;  Hughes  v.  Oregoniau 
R'y  Co.,  11  Ore.  158.  Compare  :Mich- 
igan  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  1  111.  App.399;  Holland  r. 
Leslie,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  306.  As  to  when 
foreign  corporations  may  be,  see  Neu- 
f elder  v.  German- American  Ins.  Co. 
(Wash.),  33  Pac.  R.  870 ;  German  Bank 
V.  Am.  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  83  Iowa,  491,  S. 
C.  32  Am.  St.  R.  316,  and  note ;  Folger 
r.  Columbian  Ins.  Co.,  99  Mass.  267, 
S.  C.  96  Am.  Dec.  747,  and  note. 

6  Erie  c  Knapp,  29  Pa.  St.  173 ;  Mer- 
roll  r.  Campbell,  49  Wis.  535,  S.  C.  35 
Am.  R.  785;  Memphis  r.  Laski,  9 
Ileisk.   (Tenn.)  511,  S.  C.  24  Am.  R, 


472 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§387 


tory  provision  upon  the  subject,  real  estate  is  not  subject  to 
trarnishment.^ 

§  387.  Procedure  in  garnishment. — In  some  of  the  States 
the  writ  of  attachment  itself  authorizes  the  officer  not  only  to 
levy  on  the  property  of  the  defendant  subject  to  actual  seizure 
in  his  own  hands,  but  also  to  reach  that  in  the  hands  of  a 
third  person  by  summoning  him  as  a  garnishee.  In  others, 
however,  an  affidavit  must  be  filed  in  garnishment  before  the 
writ  will  be  issued  against  the  garnishee, ^  and  in  some  juris- 
dictions a  special  bond  must  also  be  given. ^  Upon  compliance 
with  the  statutory  requirements  a  writ  issues  commanding  the 
garnishee  to  appear  and  answer.  The  garnishee  is  usually  re- 
quired to  appear  in  court  in  person  and  submit  to  an  examina- 
tion as  to  his  alleged  indebtedness  to  the  defendant  or  posses- 
sion of  the  latter's  property.*  In  many  jurisdictions,  instead 
of  an  oral  examination,  the  same  purpose  is  accomplished  by 
•  filing  interrogatories  which  the  garnishee  is  required  to  an- 
i'swer.^     Corporations  answer  under  their  corporate  seal  or  by 

327;  Walker  v.  Cook,  129  Mass.  577;  v.  Heenan,  5  Minn.  341;  Farwell  v. 
iHawthorn  v.  St.  Louis,  11  Mo.  59,  S.  Chambers,  62  Mich.  316;  Ordway  v. 
C.  47  Am.  Dec.  141  ;  Spencer  r.  School     Remington,  12  R.  I.  319,  S.  C.  34  Am. 


District,  11  R.  I.  537;  City  of  Denver 
V.  Brown,  11  Colo.  337,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R. 
214;  Commissioners  v.  Bond,  3  Col. 
411 ;  Wallace  v.  Lawyer,  54  Ind.  501,  S. 
C.  23  Am.  R.  661.  But,  see  Wales  v. 
Muscatine,  4  Iowa,  302;  Rodman  v. 
Musselman,  12  Bush  (Ky.),  354,  S.  C. 
23  Am.  R.  724 ;  Mayors.  Horton,  38  N. 
J.  L.  88;    Jenks  v.  Osceola  Township, 


R.  646 ;  Corbin  v.  Goddard,  94  Ind. 
419;  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Seeligson, 
59  Tex.  3. 

^  Rothermel  v.  Marr,  98  Pa.  St.  285; 
Citizens'  Bank  v.  Payne,  21  La.  Ann. 
380;  Pounds  v.  Hammer,  57  Ala.  342; 
Hays  V.  Anderson,  57  Ala.  374. 

*  Brainard  v.  Simmons,  58  la.  464; 
Thompson    v.    Silvers,    59    la.    670; 


45  Iowa,  554  ;  City  of  Newark  v.  Funk,     Wright  v.  Swanson,  46  Ala.  708 ;  Curry 


.  15  Ohio  St.  462. 

.  '  How  V.  Field,  5  Mass.  390;  Bissell 
V.  Strong,  9  Pick.  562;  Stedman  v. 
Vickery,  42  Me.  132;  Risley  w.Welles, 
5  Conn.  431 ;    Hunter  v.  Case,  20  Vt. 


V.  Woodward,  53  Ala.  371 ;  Roberts  v. 
Landecker,  9  Cal.  262,  266.  See,  also, 
Cornell  v.  Payne,  115  111.  63,  68. 

•^Waples    on    Attachment,     §  348; 
Nutter  V.  Railroad  Co.,  131  Mass.  231 ; 


195 ;  Wright  v.  Bosworth,  7  N.  H.  590 ;  Parker  v.  Page,  38  Cal.  522 ;  Crossman 

National    Union    Bank    v.    Brainerd  v.  Crossman,  21  Pick.  21 ;    Roquest  i'. 

(Vt.),  26  Atl.  R.  723.  Steamer,  13  La.  Ann.  210;  Richardson 

'^  As  to  requisites  of  the  affidavit,  see  r.    White,    19   Ark.   241;    Roberts  v. 

Steen  V.  Norton,  45  Wis.  412;    Prince  Barry,  42  Miss.  260. 


§387 


AUXILIARY    rROCEEDINGS. 


473 


their  proper  officers  or  agents.'  In  some  States  the  sworn  an- 
swer of  the  garnishee  is  conclusive, ^  but  in  most  jurisdictions 
the  garnishee's  liability  may  be  shown  by  the  plaintiff  by  evi- 
dence aliunde,  notwithstanding  the  answer  of  the  garnishee.-'' 
Where  this  is  the  case,  issue  is  taken  on  the  answer,  in  some 
States  by  affidavit  or  further  pleadings  and  trial,*  and  in  oth- 
ers by  oral  examination  and  evidence  of  parties  and  witnesses 
without  any  further  pleading. -"^  When  the  liability  of  the  gar- 
nishee is  not  clearly  shown  he  will  be  discharged,*^  and  so  if 
the  plaintiff  fails  to  obtain  judgment  against  the  defendant.^ 
As  against  the  garnishee  the  plaintiff  stands  in  the  defendant's 
shoes  and  can  acquire  no  greater  right,  in  the  absence  of  fraud 
or  collusion,  than  the  defendant  had  at  the  time  of  the  gar- 
nishment,*^ and  he  should  be  properly  protected  by  the  judg- 


'  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Galla- 
shue,  12  Gratt.  (Va.)  655,  S.  C.  65 
Am.  Dec.  254;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Mason,  11  111.  App.  525;  Udall 
V.  School  District,  48Vt.  588;  Head 
V.  Merrill,  34  Me.  586;  Planters',  etc.. 
Bank  v.  Leavans,  4  Ala.  753. 

''  Raymond  v.  Narragansett,  etc.,  Co., 
14  R.I.  310;  Moorer.  Green,  4  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  299;  Childress  v.  Dickins,  8 
Yerg.  (Tenn.)  113. 

'  Fearey  v.  Cummings,  41  Mich.  376 ; 
Bebb  V.  Preston,  1  la.  460;  National 
Bank  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21 
Ohio  St.  221 ;  Kelley  v.  Weymouth,  68 
Me.  197;  Davis  v.  Knapp,  8  Mo.  657; 
Rippen  v.  Schoen,  92  111.  229;  Britt  v. 
Bradshaw,  18  Ark.  530,  and  authori- 
ties cited  in  following  notes. 

♦Ellison  V.  Tuttle,  26  Tex.  283;  My- 
att  V.  Lockhart,  9  Ala.  91 ;  Faulks  v. 
Heard,  31  Ala.  516 ;  "Williams  r.  Jones, 
42  Miss.  270 ;  Lindsay  r.  Morris  (Ala.), 
13  So.  R.  619. 

'Corbin  v.  Goddard,  94  Ind.  419. 

®  Hurst  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  81  Ala. 
174;    Field  v.  Malone,  102  Ind.  251; 


Seward  v.  Arms,  145  Mass.  195 ;  Pad- 
den  V.  Moore,  58  la.  703 ;  ^Meadowcroft 
V.  Agnew,  89  111.  469;  Pierce  v.  Carle- 
ton,  12  111.  358;  Nashville  v.  Potomac 
Ins.  Co.,  58  Tenn.  296. 

'  Case  V.  Moore,  21  Ala.  758 ;  Rose  r. 
AVhaley,  14  La.  Ann.  374;  Kellogg  r. 
Freeman,  50  Miss.  127;  Washburn  r. 
New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Vt.  50;  Row- 
lett  V.  Lane,  43  Tex.  274;  Emanuel  v. 
Smith,  38  Ga.  602 ;  Collins  v.  Friend, 
21  La.  Ann.  7;  Bostwick  v.  Beach,  18 
Ala.  80 ;  Laidlaw  v.  ^Morrow,  44  Mich. 
547;  Withers  v.  Fuller,  30  Gratt. 
(Va.)  547. 

«  Noble  V.  Thompson  Oil  Co.,  79  Pa. 
St.  354,  S.  C.  21  Am.  R.  66;  Myer  r. 
Liverpool  Ins.  Co., 40  Md.  595 ;  Harris 
V.  Phojnix  Ins.  Co.,  35  Conn.  310; 
Samuel  v.  Agnew,  80  111.  553;  Mathis 
V.  Clark,  2  Mill  (S.  Car.),  456,  S.C.  12 
Am.  Dec.  688 ;  Whipple  v.  Robbins,  97 
Mass.  107 ;  Secor  v.  Witter,  39  Ohio 
St.  218;  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gates,  10 
Ore.  514;  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Thompson,  31  Kan.  ISO. 


474 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


V  o 


388 


ment.^     If  he  is  duly  served  and  docs  not  appear  and  answer 
judgment  may  be  taken  against  him  by  default.^ 

§  388.  Duty  and  liability  of  garnishee. — The  garnishee, 
when  properly  served,  should  appear  and  answer,  disclosing 
the  facts,  or  if  the  defendant  has  not  been  personally  served 
and  does  not  appear  the  garnishee  must  question  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court  if  it  has  none.^  It  has  also  been  held  that 
he  must  present  the  question  of  the  defendant's  right  to  ex- 
emption where  he  has  knowledge  that  such  a  right  exists,* 
but  as  the  right  to  exemption  is  generally  considered  a 
mere  personal  privilege,  it  would  seem  that,  upon  prin- 
ciple, the  garnishee  can  neither  insist  upon  such  a  defense, 
where  the  principal  defendant  waives  it,  nor  be  held  liable  for 


'  See  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law, 
1244. 

«  Abell  V.  Simson,  49  Md.  318 ;  Penn 
-0.  Pelan,  52  la.  535 ;  Drake  on  Attach- 
ment, §  636.  Bat  proof  should  be 
made.  Lewis  v.  Faul,  29  Ark.  470. 
And,  in  some  States,  at  least,  the 
judgment  is  conditional.  Horat  v. 
Jackel,  59  111.  139.  As  he  can  only  be 
held  in  case  the  plaintiff  recovers 
against  the  defendant  it  would  seem 
that  no  absolute  final  judgment  can 
be  rendered  against  him  upon  default 
in  the  absence  of  a  judgment  against 
the  defendant.  See  Bryan  v.  Dean, 
€3  Ga.  317;  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  26 
Ind.  441;  Whorley  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  72  Ala.  20;  Withers  v. 
Fuller,  30  Gratt.  (Va.)  547. 

•'•Debs  V.  Dalton  (Ind.),  34  N.  E. 
R.  236;  Emery  v.  Royal,  117  Ind.  299, 
S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  150;  Andrews  v. 
Powell,  27  Ind.  303 ;  Pierce  v.  Carle- 
ton,  12  111.  358,  S.  C.  54  Am.  Dec.  405 ; 
Laidlaw  v.  Morrow,  44  Mich.  547; 
Kellogg  V.  Freeman,  50  Miss.  127; 
Stone  V.  Magruder,  10  Gill  &  J.  383, 
S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  177;  Thayer  v.  Ty- 
ler, 10  Gray,  164;  Cota  v.  Ross,  66  Me. 


161 ;  Woodfolk  ^'.Whitworth,  5  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)  561;  Drake  on  Attachment, 
§  965.  It  is  otherwise,  however,  where 
the  defendant  is  personally  served  or 
appears.  Washburn  v.  New  Yoi'k,  etc. , 
Co.,  41  Vt.  50;  Harmon  v.  Birchard,  8 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  418;  Newman  .v.  Man- 
ning, 89  Ind.  422.  So  as  to  mere  irreg- 
ularities or  technical  errors  that  the 
principal  defendant  might  have  taken 
advantage  of,  but  which  do  not  go  to 
the  jurisdiction.  Whitehead  v.  Hen- 
derson, 4  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.)  704; 
Gunn  V.  Howell,  35  Ala.  144,  S.  C. 
73  Am.  Dec.  484 ;  Reynolds  v.  Collins, 
78  Ala.  94 ;  Empire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Macey, 
115  111.  390 ;  Earl  v.  Matheney,  60  Ind. 
202;  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  81 
Ind.  24;  Henny,  etc.,  Co.  v.Tatt,  73 
Iowa,  485. 

*  Mineral  Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Barron, 
83  111.  365;  Pierce  v.  Railroad  Co.,  36 
AVis.  283;  Chicago  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragland,  84  111.  375;  Clark  v.  Averill, 
31  Vt.  512,  S.  C.  76  Am,  Dec.  131 ;  Mull 
V.  Jones, 33  Kan. 112 ;  Terre  Haute, etc., 
Co.».Baker,122Ind.433;  Parker t'.Wil- 
son,  61  Vt.ll6;  Davis  v.  Meredith,  48 
Mo.  263 ;  Smith  v.  Dickson,  58  la.  444. 


§388 


AUXILIAMY    I'KOCKKDINGS. 


475 


not  making  it.^  The  garnishee  may  generally  set  up  any  de- 
fense he  might  have  had  if  sued  hy  the  defendant,  such  as  the 
statute  of  limitations,^  set-off'^  or  the  like;^  and  if  he  has  been 
garnished  in  a  prior  proceeding  for  the  same  matter  he  should 
set  up  or  disclose  that  fact.^  A  jtrior  settlement  between  the 
principal  defendant  and  the  garnishee  extinguishing  the  debt, 
or  payment  in  good  faith  made  by  the  garnishee  to  such  de- 
fendant, before  the  service  of  the  writ,  may  discharge  the  gar- 
nishee from  liability;'"'  but  such  settlement  or  payment  after 
the  service  of  the  writ  will  not  discharge  him.''  He  may  also 
be  discharged,  under  some  statutes,  by  the  payment  of  the 
money  into  court  or  delivery  of  the  property  to  the  oflBcer,^  but 
if  the  money  is  not  paid  over  or  the  property  delivered  he 
should  retain  it  until  the  final  adjustment  of  the  suit.'-*  If 
judgment  is  rendered  in  favor  of  the  garnishee  he  is  entitled 


In  several  of  the  cases  cited,  however, 
wages  were  garnished  which  w-ere  ex- 
empted by  special  statute. 

'See  Osborn  v.  Schutt,  67  Mo.  712; 
Moore  v.  Railroad  Co.,  43  Iowa,  385; 
Chilcote  V.  Conley,  36  Ohio  St.  545. 
Where  wages  are  expressly  made  ex- 
empt from  garnishment  by  special 
statute,  a  different  principle  ought  to 
apply,  but  where  the  garnishee  has 
simply  failed  to  plead  that  the  defend- 
ant is  entitled  to  an  exemption  of  a 
certain  amount  of  property  from  exe- 
cution under  the  general  statute,  we 
think  he  ought  not  to  be  held  liable  to 
the  defendant  on  that  account,  espe- 
cially if  the  defendant  a])pears  or  is 
personally  served. 

'  Hazen  v.  Emerson,  9  Pick.  144; 
Grossman  v.  Grossman,  21  Pick.  21, 
24;  Benton  v.  Lindell,  10  Mo.  557. 

^Pennell  v.  Grubb,  13  Pa.  St.  552; 
Dyer  r.  McHenry,  13  Iowa,  527;  Gox 
V.  Russell,  44  Iowa,  556,  562 ;  Wheeler 
V.  Emerson,  45  N.  H.  526;  St.  Louis r. 
Regenfuss,  28  Wis.  144. 


*  Myers  v.  Baltzell,  37  Pa.  St.  491 ; 
Firebaugh  v.  Stone,  36  Mo.  Ill;  Ed- 
son  V.  Sprout,  33  Vt.  77 ;  Baker  v.  Eg- 
lin,  11  Ore.  333;  Sauerv.  Nevadaville, 
14  Colo.  54;  Schuler  v.  Israel,  120  U. 
S.  506. 

'Houston  V.  Walcott,  7  Iowa,  173; 
Royer  r.  Fleming,  58  Mo.  438 ;  Bullard 
V.  Hicks,  17  Vt.  198;  Everdell  r.  She- 
boygan, etc.,  Co.,  41  Wis.  395;  Wade 
on  Attachment,  §  382. 

®  Huntington  v.  Risdon,  43Iowa,517; 
Lieberman  v.  Hoffman,  102  Pa.  St.  590; 
Getchellr.  Chase,  124  Mass.  366;  Cen- 
ter V.  :McQuesten,  24  Kan.  480. 

'  Cleneay  r.  Junction  R.  R.  Co.,  26 
Ind.  375;  Stevens  v.  Dillman,  86  111. 
233;  Johann  r.  Rufener,  32  Wis.  195; 
Arnold  v.  Linaweaver,  3  Head(Tenn.), 
51;  Loyless  v.  Hodges,  44  Ga.  647; 
Leslie  v.  Merrill,  58  Ala.  322;  Ellis  v. 
Goodnow,  40  Vt.  237 ;  West  r.  Piatt, 
116  :\Iass.  308;  Hughes  v.  Monty,  24 
Iowa,  499. 

*  Ryan  v.  Burkam,  42  Ind.  507. 
®  Ryan  v.  Burkam,  42  Ind.  507. 


476  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  SS^ 

to  his  costs, ^  unless  incurred  through  his  own  fault  or  neglect.^ 
They  are  usually  taxed  against  the  losing  party, ■'^  but  if  the 
garnishee  is  unsuccessful  and  has  sufficient  property  of  the  de- 
fendant out  of  which  he  can  be  reimbursed  the  costs  of  the 
garnishment  may  be  taxed  against  him.* 

§  389.  Ne  exeat. — Constitutional  provisions  in  various  States 
have  rendered  the  writ  of  ne  exeat  practically  obsolete  where 
they  exist,  and  it  is  seldom  resorted  to  in  any  State;  but  in 
some  jurisdictions  and  in  some  States  it  is  a  very  effective 
means  of  reaching  a  defendant  who  has  sequestered  his  prop- 
erty and  is  about  to  leave  the  country.-''  Originally  it  was  a 
high  prerogative  writ,  issued  for  political  purposes,  forbidding 
a  subject  to  leave  the  realm;  but  it  has  since  come  into  general 
use  in  equity  in  aid  of  remedial  justice.  It  is,  in  effect,  a 
writ  for  equitable  bail,*^'  and  is  usually  granted  only  in  cases  of 
equitable  demands'^  which  are  certain^  and  presently  payable,^ 
where  the  defendant  is  about  to  leave  the  country  to  avoid 
their  payment.^"     It  is  most  commonly  issued  from  a  Federal 

■  Jarvis  v.  Mitchell,  99  Mass.  530.  «  Cable  v.  Alvord,  27  Ohio  St.  666  j 

^Wearne  v.  Haynes,  13  Nev.  103;  Greoham  v.   Peterson,   25   Ark.   377; 

Randolph  v.  Little,  62  Ala.  396;  Han-  Mitchell  v.  Bunch,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.), 

son  V.  Butler,  48  Me.  81.  606,  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  669;  2  Story's 

3  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crane,  102  Eq.,  §§1469,  1470;  Adams'  Eq.,  360. 

111.  249;  Strlter  t;.  Brooks,  74  Ga.  401.  '  Hannahan  v.  NichoHs,  17  Ga.  77; 

*  Holbrook  v.  Waters,  19  Pick.  354 ;  Lucas  v.  Hickman,  2  Stew.  (Ala.)  11,  S. 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  81  Ind.  C.19  Am.  Dec. 44;  2  Story's  Eq.  Jur.,  § 

24;  Baker  r.  Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  52  1470;    2  Beach  Modern  Eq.,  §  1011; 

Wis.  193;  Whitney  v.  Kelley,  67  Me.  Adams'  Eq.,  360,  361;    note  to  Moore 

377 ;  Strong  v.  Hollon,  39  Mich.  411.  v.  Valda,  7  L.  R.  A.  396. 

*For  cases  in   which   it  has  been  ^Graham  v.  Stucken,  4  Blatchf.  50; 

used,  see  People  v.  Barton,  16  Col.  75,  Sherman  v.  Sherman,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  (Per- 

26  Pac.  R.  149;    Denton  v.  Denton,  1  kins'  ed.  note)  370;  Mattocks  v.  Tre- 

Johns.  Ch.   (N.  Y.)    364;     Coglar  v.  main,  3  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  75;    Mc- 

Coglar,  1  Ves.  Jr.  94;    Jones  v.  Al-  Donough  v.  Gaynor,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  249. 

ephsin,    16    Ves.    470;     Mitchell    v.  "Seymour  f.  Hazard,  1  Johns.  Ch. 

Bunch,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.),  606,  S.  C.  22  (N.  Y.)  1 ;  Rhodes  v.  Cousins,  6  Rand 

Am.  Dec.  669;    Shainwald  v.  Lewis,  (Va.),   188,   S.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  715; 

46Fed.  R.839;  Old  Hickory,  etc.,  Co.  Wliitehouse  v.  Partridge,   3  Swanst. 

V.   Bleyer,    74   Ga.    201;    Johnson   v.  365. 

Clendenin,  5  Gill  &  J.  463;    2  Beach  '"Graham  v.  Slacken,  4  Blatchf.  50; 

Modern  Eq.,   §§  1010,  1011;    note  to  Mitchelh).  Bunch,  2 Paige  (N.Y.),  606, 

Moore  v.  Valda,  7  L.  R.  A.  396.  S.  C.  22  Am.  Dec.  069;    Fitzgerald  v. 


§390 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS. 


477 


•court  of  equity.  The  writ  should  be  prayed  for  in  the  bill,^ 
but  may  be  granted  at  any  time  after  the  bill  is  filed  even 
though  it  contains  no  prayer  for  a  ne  exeat,'^  and  the  applica- 
tion may  be  made  ex  parte.^  When  not  prayed  for  in  the  bill 
it  is  usually  granted  upon  a  motion  or  petition  supported  by 
affidavit.*  The  writ  may  issue  against  a  foreigner  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court  as  well  as  against  a  citizen.^  The 
writ  may  be  discharged  upon  motion  made  within  u  reasonable 
time,^  for  good  cause,  or  by  giving  security,"  or  paying  the 
amount  of  the  plaintiff's  claim  into  court. ^ 

§  390.  Injunction — Generally. — An  injunction  is  very  often 
an  important  auxiliary  remedy,  but  it  is  not  always  an  aux- 
iliary proceeding;  on  the  contrary,  an  injunction  is  in  many 
instances  the  principal  relief  required.^     It  is  not  our  purpose 


Gray,  59  Ind.  254;    Dean  v.  Smith,  23 
Wis.  483,  S.  C.  99  Am.  Dec.  198. 
'  U.  S.  Eq.,  Rule,  21;  Adams'  Eq., 

3(n. 

■^  Cullinson's  Case,  18  Ves.  Jr.  353; 
Lewis  V.  Shainwald,  7  Saw.  403,  417 ; 
note  to  Moore  v.  Valda,  7  L.  R.  A. 
396.  It  may  be  granted  after  final  de- 
cree and  will  continue  in  force  until 
■dissolved  by  court  or  satisfaction  of 
the  decree.  Lewis  v.  Shainwald,  48 
Fed.  R.  492. 

^Collinson's  Case,  18  Yes.  Jr.  353; 
Samuel  v.  Wiley,  50  N.  H.  353 ;  Elliott 
V.  Sinclair,  Jacob,  545;  McGhee  v. 
McGhee,  8  Ga.  295,  S.  C.  52  Am.  Dec. 
407. 

*  Cable  V.  Alvord,  27  Ohio  St.  654; 
Clayton  v.  Mitchell,  1  Del.  Ch.  32; 
Mattocks  V.  Tremain,  3  Johns.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  75;  Rico  v.  Ganltier,  3  Atk. 
oOl ;  Adams'  Eq.,  361;  note  to  ]\Ioore 
V.  Yalda,  7  L.  R.  A.  396. 

«  Flack  V.  Holm,  IJ.  &  W.  405;  Mc- 
Namara  v.  Dwyer,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.), 
239,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  627 ;  ^litchell 
V.  Bunch,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.),  606,  S.  C. 
22  Am.  Dec.  669.     It  has  been  held 


that  it  will  not  issue  against  a  married 
woman.  Moore  v.  Valda,  151  ]Mass. 
363,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  1102;  Adams  v. 
Whitcomb,  46  Vt.  708.  But,  compare 
Moore  v.  Hudson,  6  Mad.  138. 

*  Gernon  v.  Boecaline,  2  Wash.  C.  C. 
130 ;  Grant  v.  Grant,  3  Russ.  598,  602 ; 
West  V.  Walker,  6  Blackf.  (Ind.)  420; 
Harris  v.  Hardy,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.),  393; 
Miller  v.  Miller,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  386.  See 
Cary  v.  Cary,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  20. 

'  Roddam  v.  Hetherington,  5  Ves. 
91 ;  Baker  v.  Dumaresque,  2  Atk.  &}; 
Georgia  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bissell,9  Paige 
(N.  Y.),  225;  Bleyer  v.  Blum,  70  Ga. 
558;  Parker  v.  Parker,  12  N.  J.  Eq. 
105. 

^  Evans  v.  Evans,  1  Ves.  Jr.  96 ;  Gil- 
bert V.  Colt,   Hopk.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  562. 

'An  injunction  is  an  order  or  writ 
requiring  a  party  to  door  refrain  from 
doing  a  particular  act  or  particular 
acts.  Equity  in  employing  the  rem- 
edy of  injunction  usually  restrains  or 
prevents,  but  it  also  issues  what  is 
called  a  mandatory  injunction  and  by 
such  an  order  or  writ  commands  that 
acts  shall  be  done.     Chicago,  etc.,  Co. 


478 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  390 


to  treat  at  length  of  the  subject  of  injunctions  since  that  would 
be  outside  of  the  scope  of  our  work;  all  that  we  propose  to  do 
is  to  treat  of  the  order  or  writ  as  an  auxiliary  remedy,  but  in 
doing  this  we  must  necessarily  speak  of  the  general  features  of 
the  writ  or  order  of  injunction  whether  it  constitutes  an  aux- 
iliary remedy  or  is  the  principal  or  exclusive  remedy  in  the 
suit.  Whether  issued  as  a  principal  remedy  or  as  an  auxiliary 
one  an  injunction  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  and  efficacious 
instruments  of  preventive  justice.  Where  the  two  systems, 
law  and  equity,  are  separate  and  the  courts  adhere  to  old  doc- 
trines the  remedy  is  much  restricted,  much  more,  as  it  seems 


V.  St.  Jo,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Fed.  R.  58 ;  Mar- 
tyr V.  Lawrence,  2  De  G.  J.  &  S.  261 ; 
Murdock's  Case,  2  Bland's  Ch.  461,  S. 
C.  20  Am.  Dec.  381;  Toledo,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Penna.Co.,54  Fed.R.730, 19  Lawy.R. 
Anno.  387 ;  Gardners.  Stroever,  81  Cal. 
148, 6Lawy.R.Anno.  90;  Mastint;.  Hal- 
ley,  61  Mo.  196;  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Long,  46  Kan.  701;  Pensacola,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Spratt,  12  Fla.  26,  S.  C.  91  Am. 
Dec.  747;  Brown  v.  Haff,  5  Paige,  235, 
S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec.  425 ;  Bailey  v.  Schnit- 
zins,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  178;  Andrews  v. 
McLeod,  66  Miss.  348;  Whitecar  v. 
Michenor,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  6;  Hodge  v. 
Giese,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  342;  Shivers  v. 
Shivers,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  578 ;  Sullivan  v. 
Graffert,  53  la.  531;  Danenhauer  v. 
Devine,  51  Tex.  480;  Denny  v.  Denny, 
113  Ind.  22;  Allen  v.  Hanks,  136  U. 
S.300 ;  Kilbourn  v.  Sunderland,  130  U. 
S.  505;  Gormley  v.  Clark,  134  U.  s. 
338.  A  mandatory  injunction  may  be 
awarded  upon  a  preliminary  hearing. 
Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Penna.  Co.,  supra. 
It  is  a  settled  principle  of  equity  juris- 
prudence that  an  injunction  will  not 
be  granted  where  there  is  an  adequate 
remedy  at  law,  but  to  exclude  relief 
by  injunction  the  legal  remedy  must 
be  equally  as  prompt,  full  and  eflBca- 
cious  as  that  of  equity.  "Watson  r. 
Sutherland,   5  Wall.   74;    Buzard  v. 


Houston,  119  L".  S.  347;  Boj'ce's  Ex. 
V.  Gundy,  3  Pet.  210 ;  Hower  v.  Weiss, 
bb  Fed.  R.  356 ;  Beadel  v.  Perry,  L.  R., 
3  Eq.  465;  Coe  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co., 
3  Fed.  R.  775;  Payne  v.  Kansas,  etc., 
Co.,  46  Fed.  R. 546;  Re  Sloan  (N.  M.), 
25  Pac.  R.  930.  See,  generally.  United 
Lines,  etc.,  Co. i;.  Grant,  137N.Y.  7,  32 
N.  E.  R.  1005;  Lowenbein  v.  Fuld- 
ner,  21  N.  Y.  S.  615 ;  Hagan  v.  BUn- 
dell,  56  Fed.  R.  696;  Proprietors,  etc., 
V.  Proprietors,  85  Me.  175,  S.  C.  27 
Atl.  R.  93.  The  code  does  not  en- 
tirely change  the  rule.  Xeiser  v. 
Thomas,  99  Mo.  224 ;  Bass  v.  City  of 
Fort  Wayne,  121  Ind.  389;  Smith  v. 
Goodkni'ght,  121  Ind.  312,  S.  C.  23  N. 
E.  R.  148.  The  reason  for  this  rule  is 
not  that  the  relief  is  equitable,  since 
under  the  code  there  is  no  substantial 
difference  between  legal  and  equitable 
relief.  The  true  reason  for  the  rule  is, 
as  we  believe,  that  the  one  remedy  is 
ordinary  and  the  other  extraordinary. 
The  codes  of  the  different  States  have 
undoubtedly  greatly  extended  the 
remedy  by  injunction.  In  those  States 
where  there  is  only  one  action,  de- 
nominated a  civil  action,  all  relief, 
equitable  and  legal,  may  be  obtained 
in  a  single  action.  Pomeroy's  Reme- 
dies and  Remedial  Rights,  95;  Feder 
V.  Field,  117  Ind.  386;    Field  v.  Holz- 


§390 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS. 


479 


to  us,  than  is  reasonable  or  just.  The  tendency  of  modern  ad- 
judications is  to  widen  the  field  of  preventive  justice  and  to 
employ  the  chief* of  all  the  preventive  remedies  with  a  free 
liand.'  In  the  code  States  the  remedy  of  injunction  is  more 
often  employed  than  in  jurisdictions  where  the  old  system  pre- 
vails, for  in  the  code  States  all  relief,  equitable  or  legal,  may 
be  obtained  in  a  civil  action,  whereas  in  States  where  the  old 
system  still  exists  relief  by  injunction  can  only  Vje  secured 
from  a  court  of  equity,  so  that  to  secure  an  injunction  as  an 
auxiliary  aid  to  the  enforcement  of  a  legal  cause  of  action  the 
jurisdiction  of  two  courts  must  be  invoked,  that  of  the  one  be- 
ing necessary  to  supply  relief  at  law,  and  that  of  the  other  to 
furnish  equitable  relief.  Considered  with  reference  to  their 
duration  injunctions  may  be  thus  classified:  1.  Restraining 
orders.  2.  Temporary  injunctions.  3.  Perpetual  injunctions. 
A  restraining  order  is  one  issued  by  the  court  upon  proper  ap- 
plication to  continue  until  a  time  fixed  for  the  hearing  of  the 
motion  for  a  temporary  injunction.^     A  restraining  order  is 


man,  93  Ind.  205;  Richwine  v.  Pres- 
byterian Church  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R. 
737,  738. 

•  Champ  V.  Kendrick,  130  Ind.  549, 
citing  Erwin  v.  Fulk,  94  Ind.  235; 
Bishop  V.  Moorman,  98  Ind.  1.  In  the 
case  first  cited,  the  court  quoted  with 
p.pproval  from  3  Pomeroy's  Equity, 
§  357,  the  following:  "That  a  remedy 
which  prevents  a  threatened  wrong  is 
in  its  essential  nature  better  than  a 
remedy  which  permits  the  wrong  to 
be  done,  and  then  attempts  to  pay  for 
it  by  the  pecuniar}'  damages  which  a 
jury  may  assess."  It  seems  to  us  that 
in  the  jurisdictions  where  there  is  only 
one  action  there  is  everj'  reason  for 
extending  the  field  of  preventive  jus- 
tice, and  none  for  narrowing  it.  The 
unreasonable  strife  which  so  long  pre- 
vailed between  the  courts  of  law  and 
the  courts  of  chancery  led  to  a  restric- 
tion of  preventive  remedies  to  the  det- 
riment of  justice.    There  is  no  just 


reason  why  the  old  ill-working,  ill-do- 
ing rules  should  not  be  swept  away. 
The  precedents  of  the  past  are,  how- 
ever, yet  adhered  to,  although  they 
have  ceased  to  have  any  adequate 
support  in  reason  or  principle.  If  by 
preventing  a  wrong  justice  is  pro- 
moted, the  wrong  ought  to  be  pre- 
vented. It  is  infinitely  more  import- 
ant that  adequate  justice  be  done  than 
that  precedents  be  observed.  Espe- 
cially is  this  true  where  precedents 
have  outworn  their  usefulness,  and 
the  changes  wrought  by  a  liberal  and 
enlightened  view  of  jurisprudence 
have  taken  from  them  their  usefulness 
and  their  oflBce.  Where,  as  in  the 
code  States,  one  court  in  one  action 
administers  all  relief,  the  only  con- 
sideration should  be  what  remedy  will 
most  promptly,  effectively  and  fairly 
jneld  justice  to  the  litigants. 

'Wallace  r.  McVey,  6  Ind.  300,  303  •, 
Dexter  r.Ohlander,95  Ala.467,10  So.R. 


480  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT,  §  391 

substantially  the  same  thing  as  a  preliminary  injunction,  and 
its  essential  characteristic  is  that  it  is  granted  until  notice  can 
be  given.  A  restraining  order  corresponds  to  what  is  some- 
times called  a  "provisional  injunction"  or  an  interlocutory  in- 
junction. Where  an  emergency  is  shown  the  order  of  injunc- 
tion may  issue  in  term  or  vacation  without  notice.^  A  tem- 
porary injunction  is  one  granted  to  continue  in  force  until  a 
time  designated  by  the  court.  In  granting  a  temporary  in- 
junction the  court  does  not  decide  the  merits  of  the  suit.^  A 
temporary  injunction,  a  preliminary  injunction,  or  a  provis- 
ional injunction  is  an  interlocutory  decretal  order  and  is  not 
in  any  instance  final.  A  perpetual  injunction  is,  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say,  a  final  decree  commanding  a  party  to  do  or 
refrain  from  doing  a  particular  act,  and  remains  in  force  until 
reversed  or  annulled  in  due  course  of  law. 

§  391.  When  an  injunction  lies. — We  have  spoken  of  the 
rule  that  equity  will  not  assume  jurisdiction  where  there  is  an 
adequate  remedy  at  law,  and  have  suggested  that  the  rule  still 
prevails  even  in  those  States  where  the  statute  declares  that 
the  distinction  between  law  and  equity  is  abolished.^  The 
courts  still  cling  to  the  old  doctrine,  but  the  modern  cases  have 
essentially  modified  it.     The  prevailing  rule  now  is  that  to  ex- 

527;  Savannah,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Savannah,  National  Bank,  2  Abb.  416;    Holmes 

etc.,  Co.,  87  Ga.  261,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  v.  Davenport,  27  Abb.  N.  Cases,  75. 

512.  See,   generally,  Meroney  v.  Atlanta, 

"Temple    v.    Bank    of    England,   6  etc.,  Ass'n,  112   N.  Car.  842,  17  S.  E. 

Ves.    770;    Cranford   v.  Ross,  39  Ga.  R.  637;    Ilarrell  v.  Americas  Refrig- 

44;    Pendleton   v.  Dalton,  64  N.  Car.  erator    Co.    (Ga.),   17  S.  E.  R.   623; 

529;  Wingt?.  Fairhaven,  8Cush.  363;  Cornwall     v.    Sachs,    23     N.     Y.    S. 

Perry  v.  Parker,   1  Wood  &  M.  280;  500;    Hagan   v.  Blindell,  54  Fed.  R. 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fitch,  1  Paige,  40,   S.  C.  on  appeal,  56  Fed.  R.  696; 

97;    Ogden  v.  Kip,  6  John.  Ch.  160;  Birmingham,  etc.,  ij.  City  of  Bessemer 

Murdock's   Case,   2   Bland.    Ch.  461;  (Ala.),  13  So.  R.  487. 
Chilton  V.  Campbell,   20  Beav.  531;        ^Forsaith,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hope  Mills 

Lloydw.  Adams,4K.&J.467;  Mayor,  Co.,  109  N.  Car.  576,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R. 

etc.,  V.  Curtiss,  1  Clarke,  336;  Haynes  869;    Andenried  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 

V.  Hazelrigg,  1  Tenn.  242;  Rutherford  Co.,  68  Pa.  St.  370;    Peck  v.  Goodber- 

V.  Metcalf,  5   Hayw.  58;     Flippin  v.  lett,  109  N.  Y.  180;    Preston  v.  Luck, 

Knafiie,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  243;    Fanshawe  L.  R.,  27  Ch.  Div.  497;    Helm  v.  Gil- 

r.  Tracy,  4  Biss.  490;  United  States  v.  roy,  20  Ore.  517,  S.  C.  26  Pac.  R.  851. 
Duluth,   1   Dill,   469;     Shoemaker  v.        ^u4n«e,  §  390,  authorities  in  note. 


§  3U1  AUXILIARY    PKOCEKDINGS.  481 

elude  the  equitable  remedy  that  of  the  law  must  be  as  prompt, 
adequate  and  eliicieiit  as  that  of  equity.^  The  test  of  the  right 
to  an  equitable  remedy  is,  therefore,  not  merely  whether  there 
is  some  remedy  at  law,  but  whether  the  law  remedy  equals  in 
its  essential  elements  the  equitable  one.  It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  an  injunction  will  lie  even  if  the  case  is  one 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  equity,  for  an  injunction  is  not  al- 
ways an  appropriate  remedy  in  suits  in  the  equity  courts.  The 
remedy  by  injunction  is  an  extraordinary  one  in  every  sense 
of  the  term,  and  to  invoke  the  exercise  of  such  a  remedy  a  clear 
and  strong  case  must  be  made.  It  is  often  said  that  an  in- 
junction is  the  "strong  arm  of  equity,  and  is  to  be  extended 
only  in  cases  where  the  strongest  measures  are  required."  But 
this  statement  is  not  to  be  taken  entirely  without  qualification, 
for  there  are  cases  to  which  it  is  not  altogether  applicable.  An 
injunction  awarded  after  final  hearing,  as  in  suits  to  quiet  title 
or  the  like,  is  of  a  somewhat  different  nature  from  one  awarded 
upon  a  {)reliminary  application,  for  in  cases  of  tlie  former  class 
it  is  simply  made  part  of  the  decree  for  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing interference  with  the  order  quieting  title,  while  in  the  lat- 
ter class  of  cases  movement  of  the  party  against  whom  the  in- 
junction is  directed  is  stopped.  It  is,  therefore,  with  reason 
that  it  is  held  that  an  injunction  will  not  issue  in  such  cases 
unless  a  clear  and  strong  case  is  made  by  the  complainant. 
The  cases  in  which  injunction  is  an  appropriate  remedy  are 
very  numerous,  and  we  can  not  do  more  than  refer  to  a  few  of 
the  manj'^  cases  in  which  it  may  be  appropriately  employed.     It 

'Watson  V.  Sutherland,  5  Wall.  74;  modeof obtainingit,isasefficientasthe 

Clark  V.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.,   44  remedy  which  equity  would  afford  un- 

Ind.  24S ;  Thatcher  v.  Humble,  67  Ind.  der  the  same  circumstances."  Much  to 

444,  448;  Bishop  v.  ]\Ioorman,  98  Ind.  thesame effectisthelanguageof tlieSu- 

1;  Spicer  v.   Hoop,  51  Ind.  365;  En-  preme  Court  of  Connecticut  in  Hodges 

glish  r.  Smock,  34  Ind.  115;  Morse  v.  v.  Rowing,  58  Conn.  12,  where  it  was 

Morse,  44  Vt.  84 ;  McAfee  v.  Reynolds,  said  :     "It  is  not  suthcie'nt  that  there 

130  Ind.  33,  36.     In  the  case  of  Gorm-  is  a  remedy,  but  it  must  be  as  prompt, 

ley  V.  Clark,  134  U.  S.  338,  the  court  complete  and  beneficial  as  the  remedy 

said:     "The  jurisdiction  in  equity  at-  in  equity."     See,  also,  Irwin  v.  Lewis, 

taches,  unless  the  legal  remedy,  both  50   iMiss.   363;    Sherman    v.    Clark,  4 

in  respect  to  the  final  relief  and  the  Nev.  138. 
31 


482 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§391 


is  often  employed  in  order  to  prevent  a  multiplicity  of  actions;^ 
and  the  weight  of  authority  and  the  soundest  reason  justify  its 
employment  at  the  suit  of  the  State  or  its  representative  against 
corporations  that  abuse  their  corporate  powers  to  the  injury  of 
the  public  interests  or  public  safety,  or  to  the  subversion  of 
public  policy.'^  The  remedy  is  appropriate  where  conspiracies 
are  formed  and  acts  are  done  in  execution  of  it  by  employees 
to  the  injury  of  employers.^     It  is  an  effective  and  proper  rem- 


1  Smith  V.  Bivens,  56  Fed.  R.  352; 
Hagan  v.  Blindell,  56  Fed.  R.  696; 
Foster's  Fed.  Proc,  §  209;  2  Beach 
Mod.  Eq.,  §  644. 

^  This  general  doctrine  is  vindicated 
in  an  opinion  strong  in  reasoning  and 
rich  in  authority  in  the  case  of  Attor- 
ney General  v.  The  Railroads,  35  Wis. 
425.  The  authorities  are  there  collected 
and  ably  reviewed.  See,  also,  Stockton 

V.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. ,  S. 

C.  17  Lawy.  R.  Anno.  97, 103 ;  Attorney 
General  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  27  N. 
J.  Eq.  631,  633 ;  Ware  v.  Regents  Canal 
Co.,  3  De  Gex  &  J.  212,  228;  Fifh- 
mongers  v.  East  India  Co.,  1  Dickens, 
163 ;  Blakemore  v.  Glamorganshire  Ca- 
nal Co.,  1  Mylne  &  K.  154;  Attorney 
General  v.  Cambridge  Gas  Co.,  4  Ch. 
App.  Cases,  71 ;  Attorney  General  v. 
Great  North,  etc.,  Co.,  4  DeGe.  &  S.  75 ; 
State  V.  Saline  Co.,  51  Mo.  350;  State 
V.  Crawford,  28  Kan.  726;  People  v. 
City  of  St.  Louis,  5  Gil. (111.)  351 ;  At- 
torney General  v.  Hunter,  1  Dev.  Eq. 
(N.  C.)  12.  In  the  case  of  People  v. 
City  of  St.  Louis,  supra,  the  court  said : 
"Independent  of  anv  statutory  power, 
the  State,  as  a  political  corporation, 
has  a  right  to  institute  suit  in  any  of 
her  courts,  whether  it  be  required  by 
her  pecuniary  interests  or  the  general 
public  welfare  demands  it."  It  was 
also  said:  "The  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  over  the  subject-matter  was  also 
undoubted.  The  court  of  chancery 
may  grant  preventive  as   well  as  re- 


medial relief,  and  this  may  be  done 
where  the  act  threatened  may  be  pun- 
ishable under  the  criminal  laws."  To 
much  the  same  effect  is  the  language 
of  the  court  in  Littleton  v.  Fritz,  65 
Iowa,  488,  S.  C.  54  Am.  R.  19,  where 
it  was  said:  "There  are  many  ad- 
judged cases  aside  from  those  above 
cited  whichexpressly  hold  that  the  fact 
that  a  nuisance  is  a  crime  and  pun- 
ishable as  such  does  not  deprive  equity 
of  its  jurisdiction  to  restrain  and  abate 
it."  The  court  after  citing  the  cases 
proceeds  thus :  "And this  rule  applies 
to  actions  by  private  individuals  and 
to  suits  for  the  benefit  and  in  behalf 
of  the  State."  The  opinion  in  the  case 
of  State  V.  Saunders (N.  H.),  18  Lawy. 
R.  Anno.  646,  is  a  very  able  one,  and 
exhaustively  reviews  the  authorities. 
It  asserts  in  strong  terms  the  right  of 
the  State  to  invoke  equitable  aid,  and 
demonstrates  the  right  to  equitable 
relief  where  the  acts  are  criminal.  See, 
also,  Peoples  Gas  Co.  v.  Tyner,  131 
Ind.  277,  283. 

'Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
Co.,  54  Fed.  R.  730,  S.  C.  19  Lawy.  R. 
Anno.  387 ;  Hagan  v.  Blindell,  56  Fed. 
R.  696 ;  Casey  V.  Cincinnati,  etc., Co. ,45 
Fed.  R.  135,  S.  C.  12  Lawy.  R.  Anno. 
193.  In  the  case  last  cited  the  court 
said:  "No  case  has  been  cited  where 
upon  a  proper  showing  of  facts  an  un- 
successful appeal  has  been  made  to 
a  court  of  chancery  to  restrain  a  boy- 
cott."    Among  the  cases    cited  are' 


§391 


AUXILIARY    PROCKEDINGS. 


483 


edy  against  nuisances,  the  rule  being  that  against  private  nui- 
sances it  may  be  successfully  invoked  by  an  individual,  who 
suffers  injury,^  that  against  public  nuisances  it  may  be  ob- 
tained only  by  an  individual  when  he  suffers  a  special  in- 
jury,'^ and  in  other  cases,  that  is,  cases  where  the  injury  is  to 
the  public,  the  remedy  must  be  invoked  by  the  State  or  the 
oflicer  designated  as  its  representative.^  An  injunction  will 
lie  at  the  suit  of  a  tax-payer  to  restrain  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion from  issuing  bonds  of  the  municipality  for  an  illegal  pur- 
pose.^ So  it  will  for  an  unlawful  invasion  of  an  easement.^ 
It  is  often  employed  to  prevent  the  collection  of  illegal  taxes, ^ 
but  mere   irregularity  in   assessing   the   tax  is   not    sufficient 


Brace  v.  Evans  (Pa.),  3  R.  R.  &Corp. 
L.  J.  561 ;  Emach  v.  Kane,  34  Fed.  R. 
46;  States.  Glidden,  55 Conn. 46;  Old 
Dominion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McKenna,  30 
Fed.  R.  48.  See,  also,  Mogul,  etc., 
Co.  V.  McGregor,  L.  R.,  23  Q.  B.  Div. 
598,  624 ;  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard 
Oil  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  669. 

•Ross  V.  Butler,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  294; 
Maine  AVharf  v.  Proprietors,  85  Me. 
175,  S.  C.  27  Atl.  R.  93;  Gardner  v. 
Newburgh,  2  Johns.  Ch.  161,  S.  C.  7 
Am.  Dec.  526;  Catlin,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Valentine,  9  Paige,  575,  S.  C.  38  Am. 
Dec.  567 ;  Woods  on  Nuisance,  §  887. 

»  Canton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Potts,  69  Miss.  3, 
S.  C.  10  So.  R.  448 ;  Shed  v.  Hawthorne, 
3  Neb.  179;  Sparhawk  ?'.  Union,  etc., 
Co. ,54  Pa.  St.  401  ;  Doolittle  v.  Broome, 
18  N.  Y.  155;  Johnson  v.  Maxwell,  2 
Wash.  482,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  1071; 
O'Brien  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Conn. 
372;  Barnes  r.  Racine,  4  Wis.  454; 
Adams  i'.  Ohio  Falls  Co.,  131  Ind.  375, 
S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  57. 

'  Coosac,  etc.,  Co.  v.  South  Carolina, 
144  V.  S.  550.  See  authorities  cited, 
a7ite,  note. 

*Laughlin  v.  Santa  Fe  Co.,  3  N. 
M.  264,  S.  C.  5  Pac.  R.  817;  Wood 
County  V.  Boreman,  34  W.  Va.  362,  S. 


C.  12  S.  E.  R.  490;  Winn  v.  Shaw,  87 
Cal.  631,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  968 ;  Hanson 
V.  W.  A.  Hunter,  etc.,  Co.  (Iowa),  34 
Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cases,  83,  S.  C.  48 
N.  W.  R.  1005 ;  2  Dillon  Municipal 
Corp.  776;  Fowler  v.  City  of  Superior 
(Wis.),  54  N.  W.  R.  800. 

*  Irwin  V.  Dixion,  9  How.(U.  S.)  10 
Tapling  v.  Jones,  11  H.  L.  Cases,  290 
Hackett  v.  Baiss,  L.  R.  20  Eq.   494 
Smith  r.   Smith,    L.   R.   20  Eq.  500 
Ross  V.  Thompson,  78  Ind.  90;  01m- 
stead  V.  Loomis,  9  N.  Y.  423;  Jacobs 
v.  Allard,  42  Vt.  303;  Bull  v.  Valley 
Falls,  8  R.  I.  42;  Wilcox  v.  Wheeler, 
47   N.    H.   488;  Sanderson   v.  Penna. 
Coal  Co.,  86  Pa.  St.  401 ;  Sheboygan  v. 
Sheboygan,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Wis.  667. 

^Smairr.  Lawrenceburgh,  128  Ind. 
231,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  500 ;  Pacific,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Seibert,  44  Fed.  R.  310;  Ma- 
gruder  v.  Augusta,  S.  C.  86  Ga.  220, 12  S. 
E.  R. 587;  Allen  r.  Pullman,  etc., Co. 139 
U.  S.658;  Topeka,  etc.,  Co.r.  Roberts, 
45  Kan.  360,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  854.  See, 
generally,  Hoey  v.  Coleman,  46  Fed.  R. 
221.;  Cook  v.  Beatrice,  32  Neb.  80,  S.  C. 
48N.W.  R.  828;  Lawrence  (•.Trauer,136 
111.  474,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.  R.  197;  Sun  v. 
Boone  (Tex.),  18  S.  W.  R.  142 ;  Califor- 
nia, etc.,  Co.  V.  Gowen,  48  Fed.  R.  771, 


484 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§391 


ground  for  an  injunction.^  It  will  lie  to  prevent  the  enforce- 
ment of  illegal  assessments  for  street  improvements  where  there 
is  no  adequate  remedy  at  law,'^  but  if  there  is  an  adequate  rem- 
edy by  appeal  or  certiorari,  injunction  will  not  lie.  Injunction 
lies  to  prevent  the  wrongful  interference  with  the  right  of  lat- 
eral support.^  It  lies  to  prevent  injuries  to  real  estate  where 
there  is  no  adequate  remedy  at  law,  but  as  an  ordinary  fugitive 
trespass  is  remediable  at  law  injunction  will  not  lie.^  If,  how- 
ever, the  trespass  is  a  continuous  one,  likely  to  produce  great 
injury,  an  injunction  will  be  awarded.^  In  some  of  the  States 
a  distinction  is  made  between  a  trespass  upon  real  estate  com- 
mitted under  color  of  authority  from  a  judicial  tribunal  and 
a  mere  naked  trespass.^  Injunction  will  lie  to  prevent  the 
clouding  of  an  owner's  title  by  the  assertion  of  an  unfounded 
claim,"  but  some  of  the  courts  hold  that  if  the  claim  is  void 


*  Reynolds  v.  Milk  Grove,  etc.,  134 
111.  268,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  516;  Goff  v. 
McGee,  128  Ind.  394,  27  N.  E.  R.  754; 
Wisconsin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ashland  Coun- 
ty,81  Wis.l,  S.C.  50  N.W.R.937 ;  Hixon 
V.  Oneida  Co.,  82  Wis.  515,  S.C.52  N.W. 
R.  445 ;  Tucker  v.  Sellers,  130  Ind.  514, 
S.C.30  N.E.R. 1085  ;  United  States  Tel., 
etc.,  V.  Grant,  137  N.  Y.  7,  S.  C.  32 N.  E. 
R.  1005. 

*  Lodor  V.  McGovern,  48  N.  J.  Eq. 
275,  S.C.22  Atl.  R.  199.  See  Murdock  v. 
■Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  726; 
Albrueque  v.  Zegler  (N.  M.) ,  27  Pac.  R. 
515;  Elliott  on  Roads  &  Sts.,  440,  441. 

3  Guest  V.  Reynolds,  68  111.  478; 
Phillips  V.  Bordman,  4  Allen,  147; 
Humphries  v.  Brogden,  12  Q.  B.  739; 
Rowbotham  v.  Wilson,  8  H.  L.  Cases, 
348. 

♦Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of 
Indianapolis,  29  Ind.  245 ;  Thomas  v. 
James,  32  Ala.  723;  Stevens  v.  Beek- 
man,  1  .lohns.  Ch.  318;  Frink  v.  Stew- 
art, 94  N.  C.  484;  Waldron  v.  Marsh, 
5Cal.  119;  Cowles  v.  Shaw,  2  Iowa, 
496;  Thorn  V.  Sweeney,  12  Nev.  251; 
Davidson  w.  Floyd,  15  Fla.  667;  An- 


thony V.  Sturgis,  86  Ind.  479;  Thorn- 
ton V.  Roll,  118  111.  350. 

^  Graham  v.  Dahlonega,  etc.,  Co.,  71 
Ga.  296;  Doughty  v.  Somerville,  etc., 
33  N.J.  Eq.  1;  McPike  v.  West,  71 
Mo.  199;  Griffith  v.  Hilliard,  64  Vt. 
643,  S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  427;  Stetson  u. 
Stevens,  64  Vt.  649,  S.  C.  25  Atl.  R.  429. 

«Erwin?7.  Fulk,94Ind.235;  Shimer 
V.  Morris,  etc.,  Co.,  27  N.  J,  Eq.  364; 
Kyle  V.  Board,  94  Ind.  115 ;  City  of  New 
Albany  U.White,  100  Ind.  206;  Flood  v. 
Van  Wormer,  24  N.  Y.  S.  460.  In- 
junction will  lie  to  prevent  a  munici- 
pal corporation  from  interfering  with 
property  rights  under  claim  that  the 
property  is  within  the  corporate  limits 
where  the  annexation  proceedings  are 
void.  City  of  Delphi  v.  Startzman, 
104  Ind.  343;  Strosser  ?;.  City  of  Fort 
Wayne,  100  Ind.  443;  City  of  Logans- 
port  V.  La  Rose,  99  Ind.  117. 

^Bishop  V.  Moorman,  98  Ind.  1; 
Thomas  v.  Simmons,  103  Ind.  538; 
Shanklin  v.  Sims,  110  Ind.  143;  Petry 
V.  Ambrosher,  100  Ind.  510;  Scobey 
V.  Walker,  114  Ind.  254;  Central,  etc., 
Co.  V.  State,  110  Ind.  203. 


§391 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS. 


485 


on  its  face  an  injunction  will  not  l)e  granted.  It  seems  to  us 
that  the  true  rule  is  that  if  there  be  color  of  right  an  injunction 
will  lie,  for  an  owner  has  a  right  to  remove  all  clouds  from  his 
title.  The  commission  of  waste  may  be  prevented  by  injunc- 
tion.^ Infringement  of  patents,^  copyrights^  and  trade-marks 
will  be  enjoined.^  The  exposure  of  trade  secrets  will  be  en- 
joined where  a  proper  case  is  made.'"^  Equity  will  in  excep- 
tional cases  award  injunctions  to  stay  proceedings  in  actions  at 
law,*^  but  in  such  cases  equity  is  reluctant  to  interfere,  so  that 
one  who  asks  its  aid  must  present  a  strong  and  clear  case. 
Equity  will  enjoin  the  enforcement  of  illegal  contracts  where 
there  is  no  adequate  legal  remedy.  Injunction  will  lie  at  the 
suit  of  one  who  has  executed  a  negotiable  instrument  in  a  case 
where  there  is  a  valid  defense  to  prevent  its  transfer  to  an  in- 
nocent third  person,  for  to  permit  the  transfer  would  be  to 
defeat  the  defense."     Injunction  is  sometimes  employed  as  an 


•  Smith  V.  Rock,  59  Vt.  232;  Stout  v. 
Curry,  110  Ind.  514;  National,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Clarkin,  14  Cal.  544;  De  La 
Croix  V.  Villere,  11  La.  Ann.  39; 
Tainter  v.  Mayor,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  46; 
Smith  V.  City  Council,  etc.,  19  Ga.  89; 
Markham  v.  Howell,  33  Ga.  508;  Sil- 
via V.  Garcia,  65  Cal.  591;  Lanier  v. 
Alison,  31  Fed.  R.  100;  Kane  v.  Van- 
derburgh, 1  Johns.  Ch.  11;  Fleming 
V.  Collins,  2  Del.  Ch.  230;  Allen  v. 
Dunlap  (Ore.),  33  Fac.  R.  675.  It  was 
held  in  Marshall  v.  Turnbull,  32  Fed. 
R.  124,  that  a  defendant  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court  may  be  en- 
joined from  cutting  timber  in  another 
State.  This  decision  proceeds  upon 
the  doctrine  referred  to  in  the  closing 
sentence  of  this  section,  that,  "Equity 
acts  ill  personam." 

'Goodyear  v.  Day,  2  Wall.  Jr.  (U. 
S.)  283;  Buchanan  v.  Howland,  5 
Blatchf.  151. 

'  Drone  on  Copyright,  496 ;  Dudley 
V.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.9;  Hogg  p.  Kirby, 
8  Yesey,  215;  Baker  v.  Taylor,  2 
Blatchf.  82. 


*  Hostetter  v.  Vowinkle,  1  Dill.  329; 
Filley  v.  Fassett,  44  Mo.  68,  S.  C.  8  Am. 
L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  402,  note. 

*  Eastman  Co.  v.  Reichenbaek,  20 
N.  Y.  S.  110;  Morison  v.  Moat,  9 
Hare,  241;  Peabody  v.  Norfolk,  98 
Mass.  452. 

*  Haynes  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  35  Neb. 
766,  S.  C.  53  N.  W.  R.  979;  Haynes  v. 
Aultman,  etc.,  Co.  (Neb.),  54  N.  W. 
R.  511 ;  Boyd  v.  Weaver  (Ind.),  33  N. 
E.  R.  1027;  Allen  t'.  Buchanan( Ala.), 
11  So.  R.  777.  Injunction  is  often  em- 
ployed to  restrain  the  sale  of  land  on 
execution.  Bishop  v.  Moorman,  98 
Ind.  1.  See,  generally,  Seaside  Hotel 
Co.  V.  Hazelhuro  (N.'j.),  25  Atl.  R. 
201 ;  Dudley  v.  Hurst,  67  Md.  44,  S.  C. 
1  Am.  St.  R.  368 ;  Tucker  v.  Kenniston, 
47  N.  H.  267,  S.  C.  93  Am.  Dec.  425; 
Parks  V.  People's  Bank,  97  Mo.  130,  S. 
C.  10  Am.  St.  R.  295;  Weed  v.  Bow- 
man, 82  Iowa,  762,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R. 
808. 

'  Metier  v.  Metier,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  270; 
Ferguson  v.  Fisk,  28  Conn.  501  ;  Hough 
I'.  Challin,  4  Sueed  (Tenn.),  238;  Bell 


486  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  392 

auxiliary  remedy  where  the  case  has  been  carried  by  appeal  to 
an  appellate  tribunal.^  We  have  given  instances  sufficient  to 
convey,  in  outline  at  least,  a  fair  conception  of  the  remedy  by 
injunction  and  that  is  all  that  our  purpose  requires.  It  may 
not  be  amiss,  however,  to  say  in  conclusion  that  the  remedy 
of  injunction,  like  all  purely  equitable  remedies,  acts  upon  the 
person,  so  that  if  the  person  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court,  equity  may  enjoin  the  performance  of  acts  beyond  the 
territorial  limits  of  the  State  or  Nation. ^ 

§  392.  Injunctions — Procedure. — As  an  injunction  is  an  ex- 
traordinary remedy  it  does  not  issue  as  of  course,  but  the  alle- 
gations of  the  bill  or  complaint  must  state  facts  from  which  the 
court  can  infer,  as  matter  of  law,  that  the  case  is  not  one  re- 
mediable in  an  ordinary  civil  action.  This  is  especially  true 
where  an  injunction  is  asked  at  the  time  the  suit  is  commenced 
or  is  asked  prior  to  the  final  decree.  The  general  rule  is  that 
a  bill  or  complaint  for  an  injunction  must  be  verified  or  sup- 
ported by  an  affidavit,  and  some  of  the  cases  lay  down  a  very 
strict  rule  upon  this  subject,  requiring  the  verification  to  be 
positive  and  direct. "^     Where  a  temporary  restraining  order,  or 

V.   Gamble,   9   Humph.  (Tenn.)  117;        ^  Ballard  v.  Eckman,  20  Fla.  661; 

Burnsv.Wesner  (Ind.),  34N.E.  R.  10.  Landes  v.  Globe,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ga.  176; 

» Leech  v.   State,  78  Ind.  570,  579;  Gilroy's  Appeal,  100  Pa.  St.  5;    Re- 

Sheeks  V.  Fillion,  3  Ind.  App.  262,  S.  boul's   Heirs  v.   Behrens,  5   La.  79; 

C.  29  N.  E.  R.  443;    Kent  v.  Mahaffy,  Youngblood  v.  Schamp,  15  N.  J.  Eq. 

2  Ohio  St.   498;    Elliott's    Appellate  42;  Southern  Plank  Road  Co.  t'.Hixon, 

Procedure,  §  512.  5  Ind.  165, 168 ;  Bailey  v.  Bailey  (Ga.) , 

*  In  Cole  V.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  16  S.  E.  R.  90;    Boykin  v.  Epstein,  87 

107,  116,  there  is  an  elaborate  discus-  Ga.  25,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  15;    Ross  v. 

sion  of  this  subject.     See,  also,Wilson  Crews,  33  Ind.  120 ;  Wills  Point  Bank 

V.   Joseph,    107   Ind.   490;    Carson  w.  v.  Bates,  76  Tex.  329,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R. 

Dunham,   149  Mass.   52;    Sercomb  v.  309;   Davis  v.  Leo,  6  Ves.  784;    Smith 

Catlin,  128  111.  556,  and  the  old  case  v.  Schwed,  6  Fed.  R.  455;    Lord  By- 

of  Sir   Wilhara  Penn  v.  .Lord  Balti-  ron  v.  Johnston,  2  Merv.  29;    Brooks 

more,  1  Vesey,   Senior,   444.     Under  v.  O'Hara,  8  Fed.  R.  529.     See,  gen- 

this  rule  injunctions  may  issue,  al-  erally.  State  t?.  Pierce  (Kan.),  32  Pac. 

though  they  concern  property  situated  R.  924;  Wing  v.  Fairhaven,  8  Cush. 

in  a  jurisdiction   different  from  that  363 ;  Schemerhorn  v.  L'  Espenasse,  2 

over  which   the  court  has  authority.  Dall.  360;  Calvert  t-.  Gray,  2  Cooper's 

Allen  V.  Buchanan   (Ala.),  11  So.  R.  Ch.   171,  note;    Wilson  v.   Stolley,  4 

777.  McLean,  272;    French  v.  Maguire,  55 


§392 


AUXILIARY    1-KOClOEDINGS. 


487 


provisional  injunction,  is  sought  without  notice  it  should  be 
prayed  for  in  the  complaint  or  bill,^  and  an  emergency  should 
be  shown  properly  requiring  the  issuing  of  the  order  or  in- 
junction at  once.^  Where  a  case  is  made  by  the  bill  or  com- 
plaint for  an  interlocutory  injunction  of  any  sort,  it  may  be 
awarded  by  a  judge  in  vacation  or  the  court  in  term.'^  In  the 
Federal  courts,  and,  indeed,  in  many  other  courts,  averments 
of  facts  showing  that  irreparable  injury  will  be  inflicted  upon 
the  plaintiff  entitle  him  to  an  immediate  order  of  injunction.* 
The  facts,  as  a  rule,  must  show  the  urgency  for  immediate  in- 
tervention by  the  court,  but  it  is  customary,  and  in  some  ju- 
risdictions necessary,  to  state  in  explicit  terms  that  an  emer- 
gency   exists   for    the    immediate  issuance   of  an  injunction.^ 

How.  Pr.  R.  471 ;  Ewing  v.  Duncan,  ^  Temple  v.  Bank  of  England,  6  Ves. 
81  Tex.  230,  S.  C.  16  S.W.  R.  1000 ;  St.  770 ;  Crawford  v.  Ross,  39  Ga.  44 ;  Pen- 
James'  Church  V.  Arrington,  36  Ala.  dleton  v.  Dalton,  64  N.  Car.  329 ;  Bron- 
546 ;  Rhodes  v.  Dunbar,  57  Pa.  St.  274 ;  enberg  v.  Board,  41  Ind.  502. 
Fort  V.  Groves,  29  Md.  188;  Indian,  *  Payne  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Fed. 
etc.,  Co.  V.  East,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Fla.  387,  R.  546;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burling- 
S.  C.  10  So.  R.  480;  Clark  r.  Lawrence,  ton,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Fed.  R.481.  The  term 
6  Jones'  Eq.  (N.  Car.)  83;  Attorney  "irreparable  injury"  is  frequently, 
General  v.  Steward,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  340;  and,  indeed,  usually  employed,  but  it 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  62  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  mean- 
Ala.  555.  ing.     If  the  threatened  injury  is  of  a 

'Wood  V.  Beadell,  3  Sim.  273.     See  very  serious  nature  an  injunction  will 

Rule  21,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct. ;  Shainwald  v.  issue,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  it 

Lewis,  6  Fed.  R.  766 ;  Leforge  v.  West,  should  be  such  as    is  impossible  to 

2  Ind.  514;  Southern  Plank  Road  Co.  make  reparation  for,  but  it  must  be 

V.  Hixon,  5  Ind.  165 ;    Lewiston,  etc.,  such  as  can  not  be  justly  compensated 

Co.  V.  Franklin  Co.,  54  Me.  402;    Col-  in  damages.     Some  of  the  courts  have 

lege  Co.  V.  Moss,  77  Ind.  139.     It  is,  issued  injunctions  where  the  amount 

however,  held  that  at  the  final  hear-  in  controversy  is  inconsiderable,  but 

ing  an  injunction  may  be  awarded,  this  seems  to  us  a  departure  from  prin- 

although  there  is  no  special  prayer  for  ciple.    It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  is  gener- 

it.     African  Church  v.  Conover,  12  C.  ally  where  no  damages  are  obtainable, 

E.  Green,  157;   Walker  ?\  Devereaux,  that  an  injunction  may  issue,  as,  for 

4   Paige,   229,   248.     The    better    and  instance,  in   cases  where  there   is   a 

safer  practice  is  to  specially  pray  for  clear  equitable  right  which  in  good 

an  injunction.  conscience    ought  to    be  vindicated. 

'Androvette  v.  Bowne,  4  Abb.  Pr.  Clowesv.  Staffordshire,  etc.,  Co.,  L.R., 

(N.Y.)440;  Wallace  v.  McVey,6  Ind.  8  Ch.  App.  125;    Wood  r.  Sutcliffe,  2 

300;    Andrews  v.  Powell,  27  Ind.  303.  Sim.  (N.  S.)  163. 

See,  generally,  Yuengeling  v.  Johnson,  *  Hale  v.  Point  Pleasant,  etc.,  Co.,  23 

1  Hughes,  607.                             •  W.  Va.  454;  Poyer  v.  Village  of  Des- 


488  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  392 

Where  there  is  time  to  give  notice  the  general  rule  is  that 
notice  of  the  application  must  be  given/  so  that  cause  excus- 
ing the  giving  of  notice  must  be  shown  by  proper  averments; 
otherwise  notice  must  be  given  of  the  application.  The  urgency 
of  immediate  assistance  from  the  court  may,  of  course,  be 
shown  by  the  facts  pleaded,  and  this,  in  strictness,  is  the 
proper  mode  of  showing  it,  since  the  bare  allegation  of  the  exist- 
ence of  an  emergency  would  in  the  absence  of  supporting  facts 
be  a  mere  conclusion  of  law.^  General  allegations  of  what  a 
party  defendant  intends  to  do  in  the  future  are  not  in  them- 
selves sufficient  to  entitle  a  plaintiff  to  a  restraining  order  or 
temporary  injunction,  but,  if  there  are  supporting  facts,  threats 
will  supply  grounds  for  interference  by  injunction  in  a  proper 
case.^  The  supporting  facts  may  exist  in  previous  prepara- 
tion, prior  acts,  or  in  the  conduct  of  the  defendant.  To  en- 
title a  plaintiff  to  an  injunction  the  allegations  of  the  bill  or 
complaint  should  be  clear  and  positive.*  There  must  be  a 
proper  bill  or  complaint,  for  an  injunction  will  not  issue  upon 
mere  affidavits. °  If  the  bill  or  complaint  makes  a  prima  facie 
case  for  an  injunction,  the  writ  should  issue.®     In  a  preceding 

plaines,  124  111.  310,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  =>  Diedriehst).  Northwestern,etc.,Co., 

768;  Farland  v.  Wood,  35  W.  Va.  458,  33  Wis.  219;    Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  140 ;  Portland  v.  Baker,  Patton,  5  W.  Va.  234 ;  American,  etc., 

8  Ore.  356;  Leitham  v.  Cusick,  1  Utah  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc.,  34  Fed.  R.  803  j 

Ty.  242;  Davis  v.  Reed,  14  Md.  152.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  v.  Knapp,  104  U.  S.  658. 

'Flagg  V.  Sloan,  16  Ind.  432;  Wal-  ♦Blodheim  v.   Moore,  12  Md.  365; 

lace  V.  McVey,  6  Ind.  300;    Toledo,  Patterson  w.  Bangs,  9  Paige,  627;  Per- 

etc,  Co.  V.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Mich,  kins  v.  Collins,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  482 ;  Catlett 

9,  S.  C.  27  N.  AV.  R.  715;    Androvette  v.  McDonald,  13  La.  44;  Jones  v.  Ma- 

V.  Bowne,  4  Abb.  Pr.  R.  440;  Christie  con,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Ga.  138;    Armstrong 

".  Bogardus,  1  Barb.  Ch.  167;    Atchi-  v.  Sanford,  7  Minn.  49;    Crocker  v. 

son,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35  Kan.  236 ;  Baker,  3  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  182 ;  Camp- 

."^eal  del  Monte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pond,  etc.,  bell  v.  Morrison,  7  Paige,  157. 

Co.,  23  Cal.  82;  Grant  v.  Edwards,  90  ^  People  v.  New  York,  3  Abb.  Pr. 

N.  Car.  31;  Trexler  t;.  Newson,  88  N.  (N.  Y.)  181;    Badger  v.  Wagstaff,  11 

Car.  13;    Hirsh  v.  Whitehead,  65  N.  How.  Pr.  562. 

Car.  516.  "Corning  v.  Troy,  etc..  Factory,  6 

2  Maloney  v.  Finnegan,  38  Minn.  70,  How.  Pr.  89 ;  Ward  v.  Dewey,  7  How. 

S.  C.  36  N.  W.  R.  723;  Davis  v.  Reed,  Pr.  17;    Hulce  v.  Thompson,  8  How. 

14  Md.  152;    St.  Louis  v.  Knapp,  104  Pr.  475;    International  Tooth  Co.  v. 

V.  S.  658;  Adams'  Eq.,  355,  356.  Mills,  22  Fed.  R.659;  Gentilu.  Arnand, 


§  392  AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS.  489 

section  wo  stated  that  in  granting  a  restraining  order  or  tem- 
porary injunction  the  merits  of  the  case  were  not  decided/  and 
it  has  been  hekl  that  it  will  not  be  granted  where  the  effect  of 
granting  it  would  be  to  give  the  plaintiff  all  the  relief  he  would 
be  entitled  to  upon  a  final  hearing, ''^  but  this  doctrine,  if  .sound 
at  all,  must  be  taken  with  qualification,  since  if  it  be  true  that 
a  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  the  relief  at  the  time  he  files  his  bill 
or  complaint  the  fact  that  he  may  secure  relief  on  the  final 
hearing  does  not  deprive  him  of  his  right  to  immediate  assist- 
ance. The  facts  essential  to  the  right  to  an  injunction  must 
be  stated  in  the  bill  or  complaint  and  the  pleading  can  not  be 
aided  by  an  affidavit.^  As  in  other  suits,  the  issue  for  trial 
must  be  properly  tendered  by  the  bill  or  complaint  and  not  by 
collateral  instruments.  The  notice  of  an  application  must  be 
served  on  the  party  against  whom  the  injunction  is  asked  and 
the  general  rule  is  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to  serve  it  upon  the 
attorney  of  the  party.'*  But  we  think  there  may  be  cases  where 
notice  of  an  application  for  an  injunction  may  be  served  upon 
the  attorney,  as,  for  instance,  where  the  cause  is  pending  in 
the  court  where  the  application  is  made  and  the  party  is  a  non- 
resident.^ Where  an  order  of  injunction  is  granted  to  continue 
in  force  until  a  designated  time  the  plaintiff  must  obtain  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  order  or  it  will  cease  to  be  operative  at  that 
time.  Where  a  time  is  fixed  and  notice  is  given  of  the  appli- 
cation the  defendant  may  move  to  dissolve  without  notice  or 
he  may  oppose  the  plaintiff's  motion  for  a  continuance  of  the 
order.  The  defendant  may  move  to  dissolve  prior  to  the  time 
fixed,  but  he  must  give  notice  of  the  motion.  The  rule  is  that 
in  cases  where  the  defendant  moves  to  dismiss  at  any  other  time 

38  How.  Pr.  94.     See,  generally,  Peo-  'Vanveghten  v.  Howland,  12  Abb. 

pie's  Gas  Co.  v.  Tyner,  131  Ind.'408,  S.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  461 . 

C.  31  N.  E.  R.  59;  Greenfield  Gas  Co.  »Leo  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Fed.  R. 

V.  People's  Co.,  131  Ind.  599,  S.  C.  31  273.     See  Gilroy's  Appeal,  100  Pa.  St. 

N.  E.  R.  61;    Akin  v.  Davis,  14  Kan.  5;    Badger  i'.  "Wagstaff,  11  How.  Pr. 

143;    Olmstead   v.    Koester,    14    Kan.  (N.  Y.)  562. 

463.  *  Death  v.  Bank  of  Pittsburgh.  1  la. 

'  See,  also,  Spicer  v.  Hoop,  51  Ind.  382.     See,   generally,  Swift  r.  Brum- 

365.  field,  76  Ind.  472. 

*  Sawyer  r.  Gill,  3  Wood  I't  M.  97. 


490  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  392 

than  that  fixed  in  the  order,  he  should  give  notice/  but  there 
are  exceptions  to  this  general  rule.  If  it  appears  that  great 
injury  will  be  inflicted  upon  the  defendant  by  a  continuance  of 
the  injunction  it  will  be  dissolved  without  notice  to  the  plaint- 
iff.^  Motions  to  modify  may  be  made  and  such  motions  may 
be  interposed  at  any  time  before  final  decree,  and,  indeed, 
where  an  injunction  is  embodied  in  the  final  decree  a  motion 
to  modify  is  proper.  Where  the  decree  is  too  broad  or  in  other 
respects  is  not  a  proper  one,  the  appropriate  mode  of  objecting 
in  many  of  the  States  is  a  motion  to  modify,  but  in  others  the 
appropriate  procedure  is  to  except  to  the  parts  of  the  decree 
believed  to  be  erroneous.  The  practice  in  most  jurisdictions  is 
to  hear  a  motion  to  dissolve  or  to  continue  an  injunction  upon 
afiidavits.  The  general  rule  is  that  where  all  the  material  al- 
legations of  the  complaint  or  bill  are  positively  denied  by  the 
answer  the  injunction  will  be  dissolved,  but  the  rule  upon  this 
subject  is  not  the  same  in  all  of  the  States.^  A  motion  to  dis- 
solve may,  of  course,  be  based  upon  the  insufficiency  of  the 
bill  or  complaint.  In  many  of  the  States  an  undertaking  or 
bond  is  required  to  be  filed  before  an  order  of  injunction  will 
issue,*  and  where  a  bond  is  required,  the  failure  to  file  one 
may  be  cause  for  dissolving  the  injunction.  But  the  failure 
to  file  a  bond  does  not  affect  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  an  in- 
junction upon  a  final  hearing  as  the  relief,  or  part  of  the  relief, 
awarded  by  the  final  decree,  for  a  bond  is  only  required,  as  a 
general  rule,  where  the  plaintiff  asks  and  obtains  an  interlocu- 
tory order  of  injunction.      In  many  of  the  cases  it  is  said  that 

'  Newton  Man.  Co.  V.  White,  47  Ga.  *  Gere  v.   New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  38 

400;  Gravais  V.  Falgoust,  34  La.  Ann.  Hun,  231.     See,  generally,  Sledge  v. 

391 ;  Peck  v.  Yorks,  41  Barb.  547.     Of  Blum,   63  N.    Car.   374 ;    Conover  v. 

course  notice  may  be  waived.     Chi-  Ruckman,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  303;    Kemper 

cago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Estes,  71  la.  603,  S.  v.  Campbell,  45  Kan.  529,  S.  C.  26  Pac. 

C.  33  N.  W.  R.  124.     It  is  held  by  R.  53. 

some  of  the  courts  that  a  motion  to  •''  We  refer  to  the  interlocutory  hear- 

dissolve   should   specify  the  grounds  ing,  not  the  final  hearing.     2  Spelling 

upon  which  it  proceeds.     Morris,  etc.,  Ex.   Remedies,   §1056;    Adams'  Eq., 

Co.  V.  Bartlett,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  9;    Brown  356;  Maxwell  oti  Code  Pleading,  199. 

V.  Winans,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  267;  Miller  v.  *  Adams'  Eq.,  356,  note;    Myers  v. 

Traphagen,  6  N.  J.  Eq.  200.  Block,  120  U.  S.  206. 


^0^2  AUXILIARY    I'ROCKKDINGS.  491 

it  is  within  the  discretion  of  the  court  to  grant  or  deny  a  re- 
straining order  or  a  preliminary  injunction,'  but  we  suppose 
that  this  doctrine  can  not  obtain  in  any  jurisdiction  where  a 
right  of  appeal  is  given  from  the  order  granting  or  refusing  a 
restraining  order  or  preliminary  injunction.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  rule  fully  prevails  in  any  jurisdiction,  for  it  seems 
to  us  that  it  would  be  error  to  grant  an  interlocutory  order 
where  no  cause  at  all  was  shown,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
it  would  be  error  to  refuse  one  where  good  cause  is  clearly 
shown.  If  the  ultimate  decree  gives  the  plaintiff,  or  the  de- 
fendant, as  the  case  may  be,  all  the  relief  he  is  entitled  to  re- 
ceive, an  error  in  granting  or  refusing  a  restraining  order  or 
preliminary  injunction  may  be  harmless,  since  the  general  rule 
is  that  where  the  ultimate  judgment  or  decree  is  right  inter- 
vening errors  are  not  harmful.'^  If  the  ruling  is  right  at  the 
time  it  is  made  subsequent  changes  can  not  make  it  wrong, ^ 
so  that  if  the  facts  existing  at  the  time  the  bill  or  complaint  is 
filed  show  a  right  to  a  restraining  order  or  preliminary  injunc- 
tion the  ruling  granting  it  can  not  be  erroneous,  although  there 
may  subsequently  be  material  changes  in  the  facts.  A  per- 
petual injunction  can  not  be  awarded  until  a  final  hearing,  and 
when  awarded  it  is  part  of  the  final  decree.*     It  is  held  by  some 

'Foster's   Federal   Practice,    §  233;  liminary  injunction  does  not  deprive 

Adams'    Eq.,    356,    note;     Young    r.  a  party  of  a  right  to  a  perpetual  in- 

Oampbell,  75  N.  Y.  525 ;    Olmstead  v.  junction  by   final   decree.     Bacon    r. 

Koester,  14  Kan.  463.  Spottiswoode,  1  Beav.  382 ;  Bacon  v. 

2  Elliott's  Appellate  Procedure, §590.  Jones,  4  M.  &  C.  433;  Tucker  v.  Car- 

'  Reeder  v.  Maranda,  66  Ind.  485 ;  penter,  Hempst.  440.     As  equity  may 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  127  Ind.  so  mold  its  decrees  as  to  fit  the  partic- 

461;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  ular  case  and  award  complete  relief, 

Lawrenceburgh,37Ind.  489.  See,  also,  the  court  may  impose  terms  upon  the 

Bonsell  v.  Zigler,   19  Ohio,  362;    El-  parties  in  granting  or  refusing  injuno- 

liott's  Appellate  Procedure,  §  589.  tions.    Southern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

nDaniell'sCh.Pr.  (2Am.ed.)1903;  etc.,  Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  210,  S.  C.  10  Fed. 

Adams  v.   Crittenden,  17  Fed.  R.  42.  R.  289;  McCraryr.  Pennsylvania,  etc.. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  a  preliminary  Co.,  5  Fed.  R.  367;    Brown  v.  Deere, 

or  provisional   injunction   should  be  etc.,  Co.,  6  Fed.  R.  487.     See,  gener- 

obtained  in  order  to  entitle  a  party  to  ally,  Hayes  r.  Leton,  5  Fed.  R.  521 ; 

a  perpetual  injunction.     Daniell's  Ch.  Ewing  i».  Filley,  43  Pa.  St.  3S4;  Eno 

Pr.  (2  Am.  ed.)  1900;  Baily  r.  Taylor,  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  S. 

I  R.  &  M.  73.    The  refusal  of  a  pre-  197. 


492  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  392 

of  the  courts  that  the  court  granting  an  injunction  may  sus- 
pend it  until  an  appeal  can  be  taken/  but  in  other  jurisdic- 
tions the  practice  is  to  appeal  at  once  and  obtain  relief  from 
the  appellate  tribunal.  An  appeal  from  an  order  dissolving 
an  injunction  does  not  continue  the  injunction  in  force,  since 
the  effect  of  an  appeal  in  such  cases  is  not  to  annul  or  vacate 
the  order  or  decree  of  the  court  of  original  jurisdiction. ^  An 
appeal  from  a  final  decree  or  judgment  removes  the  cause  from 
the  court  of  original  jurisdiction  to  the  appellate  tribunal,  and 
thus  deprives  the  former  court  of  jurisdiction,^  so  that  no  steps 
can  be  taken  by  it  in  vacating  or  modifying  the  injunction/ 
To  deprive  the  trial  court  of  jurisdiction  the  appeal  must  be 
actually  taken;  taking  steps  looking  to  an  appeal  but  not  con- 
stituting an  appeal  will  not  remove  the  cause  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  trial  court.^  Where  the  appeal  is  from  an  interloc- 
utory order  awarding  an  injunction  the  whole  case  is  not,  of 
course,  carried  to  the  appellate  tribunal;  hence  that  tribunal 
may  proceed  in  the  case  in  so  far  as  it  is  unaffected  by  the  ap- 

'MunsontJ.  Mayor,  19  Fed.  R.  313;  Kimberly  v.  Arms,  40  Fed.  R.  548 

Brown  v.  Deere,  6  Fed.  R.  487.  Ensminger  v.  Powers,  108  U.  S.  292 

''Sixth  Avenue,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  Pierson    v.    McCahill,   23    Cal.    249 

71  N.  Y.  430;    Graves  v.  Maguire,  6  Mitchell  ?;.  United  States,  9  Pet.  711 

Paige,  379;  Robertson  v.  Davidson,  14  Saltmarsh  v.  Tuthill,  12  How.  (U.  S.) 

Minn.  554;  Ileinlen  v.  Cross,  63  Cal.  387;  Bronson  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  Co., 

44;    Hawkins  v.  State,  126  Ind.294;  1  Wall.  405;    Stewart  v.  Stringer,  41 

Central  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  110  Mo.  400,  S.  C.  97  Am.  Dec.  278;  Helm 

Ind.  203;  State  i'.  Chase,  41  Ind.  356;  v.  Boone,  6  J.  J.  Marsh.  351,  S.  C.  22 

State  t;.  Dillon,  96  Mo.  56,  S.  C.  8  S.  Am.    Dec.    75;      Planters'    Bank    v. 

W.  R.  781;  Burr  iJ.  Burr,    10  Paige,  Neely,  7  How.  (Miss.)  80,  S.  C.  40  Am. 

166;  First  National  Bank  V.Rogers,  13  Dec.   51;    McLaughlin  v.   Janney,    6 

Minn.  407 ;  Cookt>.  Dickerson,  1  Duer,  Gratt.  609 ;  McClaughlin  v.  O'Rourke, 

679;    Burrall  V.  Vanderbilt,   1  Bosw.  12  Iowa,  459;  Laddt;.  Couzins,  35  Mo. 

637 ;  Ortman  v.  Dixon,  9  Cal.  23.  513.  See,  also,  Elliott's  Appellate  Pro- 

3  Allen  V.  Allen,  80  Ala.  154;  Boyn-  cedure,  §  541. 
ton  V.  Foster,  7  Metcf.  415;  Bryan  v.        "Fellows  v.  Heermans,  13  Abb.  Pr. 

Berry,  8  Cal.  130;  Boggs  v.  Smith,  53  (N.  S.)  1.     See,  generally.  Marble  v. 

Cal.  88;    Livermore  v.  Campbell,  52  McKenney,  60  Me.  332 ;  Central,  etc., 

Cal.  75;    Elgin  Lumber  Co.  v.  Lang-  Co.  v.  Standard,  etc.  Co.,  33  N.  J.  Eq. 

man,  23  111.  App.  250;  State  v.  Duffel,  372;  Doughty  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  Co., 

41  La.  Ann.  9-58;  Stephens  v.  Koonce,  7  N.  J.  Eq.  629. 
106  N.  C.  222,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  996;        » gtate  v.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434. 


^  393  AUXILIARY    I'KOCKKDINGS.  493 

peal/  but  can  not,  it  is  obvious,  proceed  in  the  matter  fully 
covered  by  the  appeal,  since  that  part  of  the  case  is  in  the 
higher  court. 

§  393.  Receivers — Generally. — A  receiver  is  a  person  ap- 
pointed by  the  court  to  take  charge  of  property  pending  litiga- 
tion.^ The  appointment  of  a  receiver  is  an  auxiliary  equitable 
remedy,  devised,  on  account  of  the  inadequacy  of  any  remedy 
at  law,  to  prevent  loss  or  injury  to  property  in  litigation  and 
preserve  it,  pendente  lite,  for  the  sake  of  all  interested,  to  be 
finally  disposed  of  as  the  court  may  decree.^  A  receiver  stands 
indifferent  between  the  parties,  and  occupies  a  fiduciary  rela- 
tion to  all  the  creditors.''  He  is,  in  a  sense,  an  officer  of  the 
court,  and  the  court  will  protect  the  property  in  his  hands. ^ 
In  the  absence  of  a  statute  authorizing  it  he  can  not  be  sued, 
ordinarily  at  least,  without  permission  of  the  court  by  whom 
he  was  appointed.*^  So  he  can  only  bring  suit  in  his  own  name 
when  authorized  by  statute  or  by  the  court."  As  a  general  rule 
he  derives  his  title  from  the  debtor,  and  can  only  maintain 
suit  where  the  debtor  could  have  done  so.^     But  there  are  ex- 

'  Miller  f'.  Pine,  etc.,  Co.  (Idaho),  32  Keen  r.    Breckenridge,   96   Ind.    69; 

Pac.  R.  207.  Wayne  Pike  Co.  i'.  State,  exrel.  Whit- 

"  High  on  Receivers,  §  1 ;  Devendorf  aker  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R.440;  DeGraf- 

V.  Dickinson,  21  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  275 ;  fended  v.  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Ga. 

Merritt  v.  Merritt,  16  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  22;    Davis  v.  Creamery  Co.,  128  Ind. 

405;  Baker  r.  Backus,  32  111.  79;  Fos-  222,  S.  C.  27  N.  E.   R.  494;    Ee  Chris- 

ter's  Fed.  Prac.  §  239.  tian  Jensen  Co.,  128  N.  Y.  550.     See, 

*Stitwell  V.  Williams,  6  Madd.  38;  however,  Foster's  Fed.  Prac.  §  251, 

liank  of    Mississippi   v.   Duncan,   52  for  recent  act  of  Congress  authorizing 

]\Iiss.  740;  Folsom  v.  Evans,  5  Minn,  suit  in  some   cases,   and   Kinney    i\ 

418;  Myers   v.    Estell,    48   Miss.   372.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  74 ;  Allen  r.  Central 

T  here  are,  however,  cases  where  a  re-  R.   R.  Co.,  42  Iowa,  683;    Lyman   v. 

ceiver  finally  disposes  of  property  as,  Central,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  59  Vt.  167. 

for  instance,  under  statutes  authoriz-  'Garver  v.  Kent,  70  Ind.  428;  Green 

ing  a  receiver  to  wind  up  the  affairs  f. Winter,  1. Johns.  Ch.  (N.Y.)  60;  AVil- 

of  a  corporation.  son  v.  Welch,  157  Mass.  77, 31  N.  E.  R. 

*  Porter  v.  Williams,  9  N.  Y.  142;  712.     See,  also,  Pendleton  c.  Russell, 

Davis  V.  Gray,  16  Wall.  203,  217.  144  U.  S.  640,   S.  C.   12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 

*3Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §1336;    Davis  v.  743.     As  to  when  the  rule  does  not 

Gray.  16  Wall.  203,  218;    Walling  v.  apply,  see  Pouder  v.   Catterson,    127 

Miller,  108  N.  Y.  173,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  Ind.  434,  S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  66. 

U.  400.  "  Jacobson  v.  Allen,  12  Fed.  R.  454, 

« Barton  v.  Barbour,  104  U.  S.  126;  457;    La  Follett  v.  Akin,  36  Ind.   1; 


494  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  394 

ceptions  to  this  general  rule,  for  a  receiver  may  sometimes 
bring  suits  which  the  debtor  could  not  maintain.  The  para- 
mount duty  of  a  receiver  is  to  secure  assets  for  the  payment  of 
the  debtor's  liabilities,  and  he  may  for  that  purpose  bring  and 
sustain  suits,  such  as  a  suit  to  set  aside  a  fraudulent  convey- 
ance made  by  the  debtor,  that  the  latter  could  not  successfully 
prosecute.' 

§  394.  When  appointed. — The  appointment  of  receivers  is 
regulated  largely  by  statute,  and  provisions  are  found  in  the 
statutes  of  nearly  all  the  states  authorizing  the  appointment  of 
receivers  in  certain  cases;  but  courts  of  equity  possess  the  in- 
herent power  to  appoint  receivers  in  aid  of  their  jurisdiction  in 
order  to  accomplish  complete  justice,  and  it  has  been  held  that 
a  statute  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  in  certain 
designated  cases  does  not  abridge  or  take  away  this  power. ^  It 
is  frequently  said  that  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  is  within 
the  sound  discretion  of  the  court, ^  but  this  does  not  mean  that 
the  court  can,  without  error,  arbitrarily  appoint  a  receiver 
where  such  appointment  is  unauthorized  and  wholly  uncalled 
for,  or  refuse  the  appointment  where  there  is  a  clear,  fixed  and 
definite  right  to  have  a  receiver  appointed.*  It  is  only  in  clear 
cases,  however,  that  the  power  will  be  exercised,  and,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule  at  least,  there  must  be  a  suit  pending.^  A  collection 
of  authorities  showing  in  what  cases  receivers  have  been  ap- 

Republic,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Swigert,  13.5  111.  *  Orphan    Asylum    v.   McCartee,   1 

150,  S.  C.  12  L.  R.  A.  328.  Hopk.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  423;    Milwaukee 

1  Graham  Button  Co.  v.  Spielmann  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Soutter,  2  Wall.  510.   The 

(N.  J.),  24  Atl.  R.  571.  action  of  the  trial  court  is  subject  to 

^  Bitting  V.  Ten  Eyck,  85  Ind.  357.  review  on  appeal.     Tysen  v.  Wabash 
But   see     Fellows    v.     Heermans,    1  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Biss.  247;  Societe  Fran- 
Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.    (N.  Y.)  7;    Colwell  caise  i;.  District  Court,  53  Cal.  495. 
V.  Garfield  Nat.  Bank,  119  N.  Y.  408.  'Pressly  v.  Harrison,  102  Ind.  14; 

^  Verplank  v.  Caines,  1  Johns.  Ch.  Pressly  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  171 ;  Anon, 

(N.  Y.)  57;  Ex  parte  Walker,  25  Ala.  1  Atl.  578;  Crowder  v.  Moone,  52  Ala. 

81 ;  Owen  v.  Homan,  4  H.  L.  Cas.  997,  220 ;  National  Bank  v.  Kent,  43  Mich. 

1032;  Oakley^;.  Paterson  Bank,  2  N.  .292;  .Tones  r.  Bank,  10  Colo.  464;  Gold 

J.  I']q.  173 ;  Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  Hunter,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holleman,2  Idaho, 

AVaible,  11  L.  R.  A.  267,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  839,  27  Pac.  R.  413. 
R. 814. 


§  395  AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS.  495 

pointed  will  be  found  in  the  note  below. ^  Mr.  Pomeroy  clas- 
sifies the  cases  upon  the  subject  and  states  that  a  receiver  may 
generally  be  appointed  to  hold  and  take  charge  of  property  in- 
volved in  litigation  "either  where  there  is  no  person  entitled 
competent  to  thus  hold  it — as  for  example,  in  the  case  of  an 
infant,  or  in  the  interval  before  an  executor  or  administrator 
of  a  deceased  owner  is  appointed;  or  where  two  or  more  liti- 
gants are  equally  entitled,  but  it  is  not  just  and  proper  that 
either  of  them  should  retain  it  under  his  control — as,  for  ex- 
ample, in  some  suits  between  partners;  or  where  a  person  is 
legally  entitled,  but  there  is  danger  of  his  misapplying  or  mis- 
using it,  as,  for  example,  in  some  suits  against  an  executor  or 
administrator,  or  under  some  particular  circumstances,  in  suits 
for  the  enforcement  of  a  mortgage;  or  he  is  appointed  in  like 
manner  and  under  like  circumstances,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 
rying into  effect  a  decree  of  the  court  concerning  the  property, 
as,  for  example,  a  decree  for  the  winding  up  and  settlement  of 
a  corporation,  or  the  decree  in  a  creditor's  suit."'^ 

§  395.   Procedure  in  obtaining  receiver. — The  appointment 

•  See  the  elaborate  note  to  Cortleyeu  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.,  121  U.  S.  105 ;  First 

V.  Hathaway,  64  Am.  Dec.  482,  et  seq.  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gage,  79  111.  207 ;  Chase's 

As  to    when   receivers   of    corporate  Case,  17  Am.  Dec.  277;  Main  v.  Gint- 

property  will  be  appointed,  see  Law-  hert,  92  Ind.  180;  Schrieber  v.  Carey, 

rence  v.  Greenwich,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Paige  48  Wis.  208;  White  v.  Griggs,  54  la. 

(N.  Y.),  587;  Cowdrey  v.  Galveston,  650;  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Missouri, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  352;  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.,  1  L.  R.  A.  397,  and  note, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Davis,  23  Ind.  553;  Over  trust  property,  see  Jenkins  v. 

Meyer  v.  Johnston,  53  Ala.  237 ;  New-  Jenkins,  1  Paige  (N.  Y.),  243 ;  Haines 

ell  V.   Smith,  49  Vt.  255;    People  v.  v.  Carpenter,  1  Woods,  262;  Johns  v. 

Northern    R.    R.   Co.,   42   N.  Y.  217.  Johns,  23  Ga.  31.  Over  infants' estates, 

Over  partnership  property,  see  Savior  see  E.r  parte  Mountfort,   15  Ves.  445 ; 

V.    Mockbie,   9   Iowa,    209;    Allen   v.  Hardy  v.   McClellan,   .53    Miss.    507; 

Hawley,  63  Am.  Dec.  198;  Miller  v.  Skinner  v.  Maxwell,  66  N.  Car.  4-5. 

Jones,  39  111.  54;  Walker  v.  House,  4  Over  lunatics'  estates,  Ex.  parte  Whit- 

Md.  Ch.  39 ;  Bard  v.  Bingham,  54  Ala.  field,  2  Atk.  315 ;  Baker  v.  Backus,  32 

463;    Van  Alstyne  v.  Cook,  25  N.  Y.  111.79;    Mitchell  v.   Barnes,   22  Hun 

489.   In  foreclosure  suits,  see  Rider  r.  (N.  Y.),194.     See,  generally,  Foster's 

Bagley,  84  N.Y.  461;  Connelly  r.  Dick-  Fed.  Prac,   §  240;  Beach  on  Receiv- 

son,  76  Ind.  440;    Syracuse  Bank  r.  ers,  Ch.  IV. 

Tallman,  31  Barb.   (N.Y.)  201;  Mc-  "3  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §  1330.     See,  also, 

Lean  v.  Presley,  56  Ala.  211 ;  Grant  v.  Kerr  on  Receivers,  1,  2. 


496 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  395 


should  generally  be  prayed  for  in  the  original  bill/  but  a  re- 
ceiver may  be  appointed  after  decree,  although  not  prayed  for 
in  the  original  bill.'-  lie  may  be  appointed  upon  motion,  sup- 
ported by  affidavits,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  property, 
without  an  inquiry  into  the  merits  of  the  principal  case.^  This 
may  be  done  even  before  answer*  or  appearance,^  but  a  strong 
case  must  be  made  for  the  appointment  before  answer,  or  it 
will  be  refused.^  Notice  must  generally  be  given  to  the  oppo- 
site party,  and  opportunity  for  a  hearing,''  but  notice  may  be 
dispensed  with  and  the  appointment  made  ex  parte  in  extreme 
cases  where  delay  would  defeat  justice  or  result  in  irreparable 
loss  or  injury.^  Affidavits  may  be  read  in  opposition  to  the 
motion,^  and  a  verified  answer  may  be  treated  as  an  affidavit 
for  this  purpose. ^°  As  a  general  rule  the  answer  is  to  be  taken 
as  true  in  so  far  as  it  is  responsive  to  the  bill,^^  in  the  absence 


'U.  S.  Eq.,  Rule  21. 

^  Connelly  v.  Dickinson,  76  Ind.  440. 
See,  also,  Cooke  v.  Gwyn,  3  Atk.  689; 
Bowman  v.  Bell,  14  Simons,  392 ;  Mer- 
ritt  V.  Gibson,  129  Ind.  155,  S.C.  15  L. 
R.  A.  277 ;  Shannon  v.  Hanks,  88  Va. 
338,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  437. 

^  Bitting  V.  Ten  Eyck,  85  Ind.  357, 
360;  High  on  Receivers,  62-79;  Blak- 
eney  tJ.  Dufaur,  15  Beav.  40,  42 ;  Cooke 
V.  Gwyn,  3  Atk.  689;  Hottenstein  v. 
Conrad,  9  Kan.  435. 

*Vann?;.  Barnett,  2  Bro.  Ch.  158; 
Williams  v.  Jenkins,  11  Ga.  595 ;  Johns 
V.  Johns,  23  Ga.  31 ;  Whitehead  v. 
Wooten,  43  Miss.  523 ;  Beach  on  Re- 
ceivers, §  110. 

^  Faii'field  v.  Irvine,  2  Russ.  149. 

« Latham  v.  Chafee,  7  Fed.  R.  525; 
Turnbull  v.  Prentiss  Lumber  Co.,  55 
Mich.  387;  Clark  v.  Ridgely,  1  Md. 
Ch.  71. 

'Tibbals  v.  Sargeant,  14  N.  J.  Eq. 
449;  Turgeau  v.  Brady,  24  La.  Ann. 
348;  Jones  v.  Schall,  45  Mich.  379; 
Whitehead  v.  Wooten,  43  Miss.  523 ; 
Field  V.  Ripley,  20  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
26;  Ruffnerw.  Mairs,  33  W.  Va.  655; 


State  V.  New  Orleans,  43  La.  Ann.  829, 
S.  C.  9  So.  R.  643;  Fredenheim  v. 
Rohr,  87  Va.  764,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  193. 

^Crowder  v.  Moone,  52  Ala.  220: 
Moritz  V.  Miller,  87  Ala.  331 ;  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Jewett,  37  Ohio 
St.  649;  Sandford  v.  Sinclair,  8  Paige 
(N.  Y.),  373;  Miltenbergerv.  Logans- 
port,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  106  U.  S.  286,  S. 
C.  1  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  140,  158 ;  French  v. 
Gifford,  30  Iowa,  148. 

»Kean  v.  Colt,  5  N.  J.  Eq.  365;  Mi- 
cau  V.  Moses,  72  Ala.  439. 

">  Ranking.  Rothschild,  78  Mich.  10. 
In  this  case  counter  affidavits  were  al- 
so allowed  to  be  filed  by  the  complain- 
ant. See,  also,  Goodman  v.  Whitcomb, 
1  J.  &  W.  591 ;  Kershaw  v.  Mathews, 
1  Russ.  362;  Ladd  v.  Harvey,  21  N. 
H.  514;  Sobernheimer  v.  Wheeler,  45 
N.J.  Eq.  614;  Allen  v.  Dallas,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  3  Woods,  316,  332. 

"  Thompsen  v.  Diffenderfer,  1  Md. 
Ch.  489;  Simmons  v.  Henderson,  1 
Freem.(Miss.)  493;  Buchanan  ■??.  Com- 
stock,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  568;  Callanan 
V.  Shaw,  19  Iowa,  183. 


^395 


AUXILIARY    PROCEEDINGS. 


497 


of  proof  to  the  contrary.^  The  order  of  appointment  should 
clearly  designate  the  property  over  which  the  receiver  is  ap- 
pointed,'-and  the  court  may  embody  such  directions  and  impose 
auch  conditions  therein  as  are  just  and  proper."  A  receiver  may 
be  removed  upon  motion*  or  upon  the  application  of  the  receiver 
himself,''*  for  good  cause  shown,  or  the  court  may  remove  him  of 
its  own  motion  for  misconduct,  for  insufficient  security,  or  the 
like."^  The  entire  matter,  however,  is  within  the  sound  dis- 
cretion of  the  court.'  A  receiver  may  also  be  discharged  and 
the  receivership  terminated,  in  a  proper  case,  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  a  tiiird  })crs()u  as  well  as  upon  that  of  either  of  the 
parties  or  the  receiver  himself.^  Where  the  object  of  the  re- 
ceivership has  been  fully  accomplished  the  receiver  will  be 
discharged,^  and  so,  generally,  when  he  has  been  improperly 
appointed,^*'  or,  by  some  subsequent  change  in  the  condition  of 
affairs,  it  is  for  the  best  interest  of  all  the  parties  that  he  should 
be  discharged. ^^     The  application  for  the  removal  or  discharge 

'  Under  the  present  practice  affida- 
vits may  generally  be  read  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  answer.  2  Dan.  Chanc. 
PI.  &  Pr.  1736;  Rankin  v.  Rothschild, 
78  Mich.  10. 


«  Crow  U.Wood,  ISBeav.  271  ;  O'Ma- 
honey  v.  Belmont,  62  N.  Y.  133;  2 
Dan.  Chanc.  PI.  &  Pr.  1737. 

^  United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  800; 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  551 ;  West  v.  Chas- 
ten, 12  Fla.  315 ;  Lewis  v.  Lord  Zouche, 
2  Sim.  388,  393. 

^  Davis  r.  Michelbacher  (Wis.),  31 
N.  W.  R.  100;  2  Dan.  Chanc.  PI.  & 
Pr.  1765. 

*  Richardson  v.  Ward,  6  Madd.  266. 


Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 
571 ;  Shackelford's  Adm'r  v.  Shackel- 
ford, 32  Graft.  (Va.)  481;  Handy  v. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 
689. 

'  Beach  on  Receivers,  §  776. 

*  Thomas  v.  Brigstocke,  4  Russ.  64 ; 
Grenfell  v.  Dean,  2  Beav.  544;  Crook 
V.  Findley,  60  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  375; 
Foster's  Fed.  Prac,  §260;  Beach  on 
Receivers,  §  793. 

'Langdon  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  53  Vt.  228;  In  re  Colvin,  3  Md. 
Ch.  278;  In  re  Long  Branch,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  398;  Tempest  v. 
Ord.  1  Madd.  59. 

"Lavender  i'.  Lavender,  Ir.  Rep.,  9 
Eq.  593;  Walters  v.  Anglo-Am.,  etc.. 


But  he  must  show  a  good  reason  or    Co.,  50  Fed. R.  316;  Popper  r.  Scheider, 


excuse  for  not  serving,  or  the  court 
will  refuse  to  remove  him  on  his  own 
application  after  he  has  once  accepted 
the  appointment.  2  Dan.  Chanc.  PI. 
&  Pr.  1765. 
®  Beach  on  Receivers,  §  783 ;  Sage  v. 

32 


7  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  56;  Copper 
Hill,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Spencer,  25  Cal.  11  ; 
Sage  r.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18 
Fed.  R.  .571,  S.  C.  125  V.  S.  361. 

"  Ferry  v.  Bank,  15  How.  Pr.(N.Y.) 
445;  Davy  v.  Gronow,  14  L.  J.  (N.  S.) 


498  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  396 

of  a  receiver  is  usually  made  by  motion,  and  notice  thereof 
should  be  given  both  to  the  parties  ^  and  to  the  receiver. ^ 

§  396.    Lis  pendens  notice. — It  is  often  important  to  file  with 
the  bill,  complaint  or  declaration,  what  is  commonly  called  a 
lis  pendens  notice.     This  is  required  in  many  States  in  order 
-to  make  the  suit  or  action  operate  as  notice  to  persons  who  ac- 
j  quire  an  interest  in  the  property  involved  in  the  litigation  sub- 
! sequent  to  the  commencement  of  the  suit  or  action.     We  do 
mot  here  employ  the  term  lis  pendens  in  the  sense,  often  at- 
tributed to  it,  of  a  step  essential  to  giving  jurisdiction  over 
property  or  of  keeping  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court. ^     The  fundamental  rule  is  that  notice  lis  pendens  applies 
only  to  the  property  involved  in  the  litigation.*     There  is  no 
notice  lis  pendens  where  the  suit  or  action  only  incidentally 
concerns  specific  property  or  where  the  title  is  only  collaterally 
involved.     It  is  obvious  that  it  is  only  in  the  classes  of  actions 
-  ordinarily  denominated  real  or  mixed  that  notice  lis  pendens  is 
j usually  effective,  for  in  actions  purely  in  personam,  the  only 
I  relief  obtainable  is  a  judgment  for  a  money  recovery.^     In  the 

iCh.  134';    Bainbrigge  v.  Blair,  3  Beav.  Houston  v.  Timmerman,  17  Ore.  499, 

'421.  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  848,  S.  C.  4  L.  R. 

•Davis  V.  Duke  of  Marlborough,  2  A.  716;    Jones  v.  McNarrin,  68  Me. 

Swanst.    113;      Bainbrigge    v.    Blair,  341;    Murray  v.  Finster,  2  Johns.  Ch. 

3  Beav. 421;  AttrilH^  Rockaway  Beach  (N.  Y.)  155;    Green  v.  Riak,  121  Pa. 

Imp.  Co.,  25  Hun  (N.  Y.),  376.     Com-  St.  130,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  760. 

pare   Coburn   v.  Ames,   57   Cal.  201;  *  Briscoe  v.  Branough,   1  Tex.  326; 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jewett,  115  N.  Gardner  v.  Peckham,  13  R.  I.  102;  St. 

Y.  166.  Joseph  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Daggett,  84  111.  556. 

'Dougherty  v.  Jones,  37   Ga.  348;  See,  also,  McLaurine  v.Monroe,30Mo. 

^  Smith  V.  Trenton,  etc.,  Co.,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  462 ;    Chase  v.  Searles,  45  N.  H.  511 ; 

',505;    Burns  v.  Stewart  Mfg.  Co.,  31  Winston  v.  Westfeldt,  22  Ala.  760,  S. 

jHun  (N.  Y.),  195;    Att'y  Generals.  C.  58  Am.  Dec.  278;  County  of  Warren 

I  Haberdashers'    Society,   2    Jur.   915.  v.   Marcy,   97  U.   S.   96;    Murray  v. 

|But,  compare  Howard  v.  Lowell  Ma-  Lylburn,  2  Johns.  Ch.    (N.  Y.)  441. 

chine  Works,  75  Ga.  325 ;    L'Engle  v.  But,  compare   Diamond  v.  Lawrence 

Florida  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  14  Fla.  266;  Co.,  37  Pa.  St.  353,  S.  C.  78  Am.  Dec. 

Herman  v.  Dunbar,  23  Beav.  312.  429;    Kellogg  v.  Fancher,  23  Wis.  21, 

^  Newmans.  Chapman, 2 Rand. (Va.)  S.  C.  99  Am.  Dec.  96;    Mims  v.  West, 

93;    Murray  v.  Ballou,  1  Johns.  Ch.  38  Ga.  18,  S.  C.  95  Am.  Dec.  379;  Mc- 

566.  Cutchen  v.  Miller,  31  Miss.  65. 

.   *Feighley  v.  Feighley,  7  Md.  537; 


§  397  AUXILIARY    PROCERDINOS.  490 

latter  class  of  cases  there  is  no  res  to  be  directly  affected  by  the 
judgment  so  that  there  is  nothing  upon  which  notice  can  oper- 
ate. Where,  however,  either  real  or  personal  property  is  di- 
rectly involved  in  the  action  there  may  be  notice  lis  pendens.^ 
The  filing  of  a  proper  complaint  or  declaration  containing  a 
sufficient  description  of  the  property,  accompanied  by  service 
of  the  subpoena  or  summons,  is,  under  the  old  common  law 
and  equity  systems,  notice  to  subsequent  purchasers,  but  by 
statute  in  many  of  the  States  this  is  not  enough,  for  the  plead- 
ing must  be  supplemented  by  a  written  notice  registered  or  re- 
corded in  the  proper  office.^  Where  the  old  rule  prevails  the 
accepted  doctrine  is  that  the  initial  point  of  notice  lis  pendens 
is  the  service  of  the  subpoena  or  summons.^ 

§  397.  Notice — Statutory. — It  is,  of  course,  essential  to  con- 
form to  the  statutory  requirements  as  to  the  form,  filing  and 
registry  of  notice  in  those  States  where  the  statute  requires 
that  the  complaint  or  declaration  be  supplemented  by  what  is 
called  a  lis  pendens  notice.  An  important  part  of  the  notice  is 
the  description  of  the  property  which  it  is  the  object  of  the 
proceeding  to  reach  and  subject  to  a  lien,  or  to  which  it  is 
sought  to  establish  title.  If  the  description  is  defective  in  a 
material  particular  the  notice  will  be  insufficient.* 

'  There  can,  of  course,  be  no  qiies-  tate  is  attached.  Bell  v.  Gaylord  (N. 
tion  as  to  the  general  doctrine  of  Us  Mex.),  27  Pac.  R.  494. 
pendens  where  the  controversy  di-  *  Smith  v.  Gale,  144  U.  S.  509,  S.  C. 
rectly  concerns  real  property,  and  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  674;  Jones  v.  Smith, 
some  of  the  authorities  declare  that  40  Fed.  R.  314 ;  Bennett  on  Lis  Pen- 
where  the  right  to  personal  property  dens,  349;  13  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of 
is  in  issue,  the  doctrine  is  the  same.  Law,  894;  Jones  on  Mortgages,  §  1409. 
but  this  is  denied  in  others.  Scudder  ^  Walker  rK  Goldsmith,  14  Ore.  12.5; 
u.VanAmburgli,4Edw.Ch.29;Taylor  Hayden  v.  Bucklin,  9  Paige  (N.  Y.), 
■y. Jones,  2  Atk.600 ;  Hadden  v.Sprader,  512 ;  Allen  r.  Mandaville,  2ti  Miss.  897 ; 
20  Johns.  554;  Leitch  v.  Wells,  48  N.  Rothchild  v.  Koiin  (Ky.),  19  S.  W.  R. 
Y.  585;  Farnham  v.  Campbell,  10  180;  Ilayden  c  Thrasher,  28  Fla.  1(52,9 
Paige,  598;  Thorns  v.  Southard,  2  So. R.  855;  Lincoln  Rapid  Transit  Co.c. 
Dana,  475;  Buford  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Rundle  (Neb.),  52  N.  W.  R.  563;  2 
Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  159;  Carr  t\  Lewis,  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  74;  note  to  Newman 
15  Mo.  App.  551,  See  Carr  r.  Lewis,  96  v.  Chapman,  14  Am.  Dec.  774. 
Mo.  149,  8  S.  W.  R.  907 ;  Miles  r.  Lefi,  *  Houston  r.  Timmerman,  17  Ore. 
60  la.  168.     It  applies  where  real  es-  499,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St.  R.  848;    2  Pom. 


500  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  398 

§  398.  Doctrine  of  relation. — Where  a  notice  is  sufficient 
and  is  duly  filed  and  registered  or  recorded  it  relates  to  the 
commencement  of  the  suit  or  action,  at  least  in  cases  where  it 
is  filed  with  the  complaint  or  declaration.^  This  is  in  accord' 
ance  with  the  general  principles  governing  the  doctrine  of  re- 
lation. The  notice  when  given  in  proper  form  and  manner  is 
in  contemplation  of  law  part  of  the  procedure  in  the  case,  and 
takes  effect,  unless  the  statute  otherwise  provides,  when  the 
suit  or  action  is  commenced,  but  in  this  respect  much  depends 
upon  the  provisions  of  the  statute  in  the  particular  jurisdiction. 
It  is  important  to  properly  designate  the  suit  or  action  to  which 
the  notice  refers,  since  it  is  the  suit  or  action  which  really 
constitutes  the  lis  pendens.  The  notice  of  itself  is  not  sufficient 
to  affect  title,  for  title  is  the  subject  of  the  suit  or  action  and 
depends  upon  the  judgment  given  therein. 

§  399.  Continuance  of  the  notice. — The  notice  lis  pendens 
continues  from  the  time  it  takes  effect  until  final  judgment  in 
the  court  of  original  jurisdiction.^  Some  of  the  cases  hold 
that  it  extends  beyond  the  judgment  in  the  trial  court  and  cov- 
ers the  time  allowed  for  appeal.^  It  seems  to  us  that  the  true 
rule  is  that  it  ceases  to  be  effective  with  the  final  judgment 
unless  steps  are  immediately  taken  to  appeal  and  the  record  is 
made  to  fully  disclose  the  proceedings. 

Eq.  Jur.,  76;  Freeman  on  Judgments,  168;    Debell  v.  Foxworthy,  9  B.  Mon. 

§§196,197;    Badger  V.  Daniel,  77  N.  (Ky.)  228;    Herrington  t?.  McCollum, 

Oar.  251;    Miller  v.   Sherry,  2  Wall.  73  111.  476;    Page  v.  Waring,  76  N.  Y. 

237;  Ray  v.  Roe,  2  Blackf.  (Ind.)  258.  463;  Ludlow's  Heirs  v.  Kidd's  Exr.,3 

'Sherman  v.  Bemis,  58   Wis.   343;  Ohio,  541. 

Stern  v.  O'Connell,  35  N.  Y.  104.  ^  Oilman  v.  Hamilton,  16  111.  225; 

*  Ashley  v.   Cunningham,   16  Ark.  Krug  v.  Davis,  101  Ind.  75. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  INSTRUMENTS  OF  EVIDENCE. 

§  400,  Proper  instruments  must  be  se-  §  411.  Motion  to  suppress, 

lected.  412.  Use  of  depositions. 

401.  General  suggestions.  413.  Waiver  of  objections. 

402.  Primary  and  secondary  evi-  414.  Discovery— Exami  nation  of 

<lence.  party  before  trial. 

403.  General    rule  — Best  evidence        415.  Choice  of  instruments  of  evi- 

must  be  produced.  dence. 

404.  Exceptions  to  rule— When  sec-       416.  Competency  should   be  ascer- 

ondary   evidence    is  admis-  tained  before  trial. 

sible.  417.  Tendency   of    modern   legisla- 

405.  Laying  the  foundation  for  sec-  tion. 

ondary  evidence.  418.  Competency  to  be  determined 

406.  Notice  to  produce  documents.  by  court — How. 

407.  Depositions.  410.  Objections  to  competency. 

408.  Rules  governing  the  taking  of  420.  Incompetency— Grounds  of  ob- 

depositions.  jection. 

409.  Certificate— What  it  should        421.  Notice  to  ■witness— Subpoena — 

show.  Attachment. 

410.  Eeturn  and  publication.  422.  Real  evidence. 

§  400.  Proper  instruments  must  be  selected. — Where  issues 
of  fact  are  joined  between  opposing  parties,  evidence  is  required. 
Tliis  evidence  must  be  placed  before  the  court  and  jury  by 
proper  instruments,  and  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  law. 
One  might  as  well  be  without  evidence  as  without  the  instru- 
ments or  means  of  presenting  it  to  the  tribunal  which  it  is 
hoped  to  convince  or  persuade.  Not  only,  therefore,  must  the 
advocate  be  prepared  with  evidence,  but  he  must  also  be  pre- 
pared with  the  instruments^  for  conveying  it  to  the  triers  of 
his  cause,  and  the  rules  governing  such  instruments  and  their 
application  to  the  particular  case,  should  be  known  and  deter- 
mined in  advance  of  the  trial  in  order  that  the  advocate  may 
properly  present  the  facts  to  the  jury.'- 

^This  includes  witnesses,  for  "a  wit-  '  "An  advocate  is  expected  to  come 
ness  is  a  means  or  instrument  of  evi-  prepared  with  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
dence."  Rapalje'sLaw  of  AVitnesses,  rules  and  principles  of  evidence."  E. 
§  1.  W.  Cox. 

(501) 


502  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  401 

§  401.  General  suggestions. — In  many  instances  there  is  no 
choice;  the  very  best  instruments  attainable  must  be  employed. 
Thus,  where  the  contract  of  the  parties  has  been  reduced  to 
writing,  the  instrument,  and  the  only  instrument  which  can 
be  employed,  to  communicate  the  evidence  to  the  court,  is  the 
writing  itself.  The  operatipn  of  this  rule  may  in  many  cases 
be  avoided,  as,  for  instance,  where  the  instrument  has  been 
lost  or  destroyed,  or  is  in  the  hands  of  the  adverse  party,  or  in 
the  hands  of  a  person  beyond  the  reach  of  the  court.  If  the 
instrument  can  not  be  obtained,  then  it  is  necessary  to  proceed, 
as  the  law  provides,  to  substitute  some  other  instrument  of  ev- 
idence. It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  best  instrument  must 
be  obtained  and  used,  if  care  and  diligence  can  secure  it,  and 
that  it  is  only  where  the  best  can  not  be  secured  by  care  and 
diligence  that  an  inferior  instrument  will  be  accepted.^  This 
care  and  diligence  consists  in  doing,  at  the  proper  time  and  in 
the  proper  method,  what  the  law  requires.  He  who  proposes 
to  employ  an  inferior  instrument  will  do  well  to  make  sure 
that  he  is  prepared  to  show  that  nothing  more  could  reasonably 
be  done  to  secure  the  best. 

§  402.  Primary  and  secondary  evidence. — Primary  evidence 
is  the  best  of  which  the  case  will  in  its  nature  admit;  all  other 
evidence  is  secondary,  and  of  secondary  evidence  there  are  no 
degrees. 2  Written  documents  are  the  best  evidence  of  their 
contents  and  must  speak  for  themselves.^     Telegrams  are  writ- 

^  "Evidence,  in  order  to  be  receiva-  Jordan,  62  Me.  480 ;  Illinois  Land,  etc., 

ble,  should  come  through  proper  in-  Co.  v.  Bonner,  75  111.  315. 
struments,  and  be  in  general  original        ^  Williams  v.    Jones,    12  Ind.   561 ; 

and  proximate."  Sebree  v.  Dorr,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  558; 

^Tayloe  v.  Riggs,  1  Peters  (U.  S.),  Perrin  v.  State,  81  Wis.  135,  S.  C.  50 

591;    Richardson  v.  Milburn,  17  Md.  N.  W.  Rep.  516;    Louisville,  etc.,  R'y 

67;  Brown  v.  Woodman,  6  C.  &  P.  Co.  v.  Orr,  94  Ala.  602,  S.  C.  10  So.  R. 

206;  Goodrich  v.  Weston,  102  Mass.  167;  Atwood  v.  Cobb,  16Pick.  (Mass.) 

362,    S.  C.  3  Am.  R.  469;    Eslow  v.  227,  S.  C.  26  Am.  Dec.  657;  Schwass 

Mitchell,  26  Mich.  500;    Carpenter  v.  v.  Hershey,  125  111.  623;  note  to  Fer- 

Dame,  10  Ind.  125.     Compare  Cornett  guson-y.  Rafferty,  6  L.  R.  A.  33 ;  Mem- 

■».  Williams,  20  Wall.  (U.S.)  226;  liig-  phis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  85  Tenn. 

gins  V.  Reed,  8  Iowa,  298;  Nason  v.  627,  S.  C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  776.     Other 


§403  THE    INSTIU'.MKNTS    OF    KVIDKNCE.  503 

ten  instruments  within  tlie  meaning  of  this  rule;*  and  so  are 
maps,  letters,  and  hand  bills. "'^  Instruments  signed  in  dupli- 
cate are  both  original;"^  but  letter-press  copies  are  not.* 

§  403.   General  rule — Best  evidence  must  be  produced. — It 

is  a  general  rule  that  the  best  evidence  of  which  the  case  is 
susceptible  must  be  produced.^  This  rule  is  adopted  for  the 
prevention  of  fraud,  and  is  essential  to  the  pure  administration 
of  justice.  It  does  not  demand  the  greatest  amount  nor  the 
strongest  possible  evidence,  but  only  requires  that  such  evi- 
dence as  is  introduced  shall  be  primary  evidence,  that  is,  the 
best  of  which  the  case  in  its  nature  admits.^ 

§  404.  Exceptions  to  rule — Where  secondary  evidence  is  ad- 
missible.— As  the  law  does  not  require  impossibilities  and  as 
statutory  provisions,  public  policy  and  even  convenience  may 
determine  how  far  a  general  rule  is  applicable  to  particular 
cases,  it  will  be  found  that  the  general  rule  stated  in  the  last 
section,  like  most  others,  is  subject  to  exceptions,  of  which  the 
following  are  the  most  important:  1.  Where  one  is  acting  as 
a  public  officer  it  is  generally  unnecessary  to  produce  the  cer- 
tificate of  his  election  or  appointment."^     2.    Certified  copies  of 

authorities  are  cited  in  the  following  letter  is  shown  to  have  been  lost   a 

notes.  verified  copy  of  the  letter-press  copy 

*  Matteson  v.  Noyes,  25  111.  591;  is  competent  evidence  the  same  as  the 
United  States  v.  Babcock,  3  Dill.  C.  letter-press  copy  itself,  and  that  the 
Ct.  571 ;  Anglo-American,  etc.,  Co.  •».  latterneednot,  therefore,  be  produced. 
Cannon,  31  Fed.  R.313;  Smith  r.  Eas-  Goodrich  r.  AVeston,  102  Mass.  3G2,  S. 
ton,  54  Md.  138;  Howley  i\  Whipple,  C.  3  Am.  R.  4G9. 

48N.  H.487:  *Chfton  r.  United  States,  4  How. 

*  Pool  V.  Myers,  21  Miss.  466 ;  Guer-  242 ;  Comer  r.  Hart,  79  Ala.  389 ;  Mor- 
in  w.  Hunt,  6  Minn.  375;    Hanson  v.  ton  r. White,  16  Me.  53;  AVellsr.  Jack- 
Armstrong,  22  111.  442.     And  ballots  son,  etc.,  Co.,  48  N.  11.491;  Bassett  r.  , 
are  the  best  evidence  of  the  intention  Marshall,   9   Mass.  312;    Holliday  v.  ^ 
and  choice  of  the  voters.     Hartman  r.  Harvey,  39  Texas,  670;  Clowc.Browa 
Young,  17  Ore.  150,  S.C.  2  L.  R.  A.  596.  (lud.)',  31  X.  E.  R.  361. 

'  Totten  r.  Bucy,  57  Md.  446.  «  United  States  v.  Reyburn,  6  Peters, 

*  Anglo-American,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Can-  352;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chapman, 
non,  31  Fed.  R.  313;  Foot  r.  Bentley,    38  Kan.  307. 

44  N.  Y.  166 ;  Marsh  v.  Hand,  35  Md.  '  United  States  r.  Reyburn,  6  Peters, 

123.     For  this   reason,   and    because  352;  Wilcox  r.  Smith,  5  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

there  are  no  degrees  of  secondary  evi-  231 ;  Fowler  v.  Bebee,  9  Mass.  231 ;  L 

dence,  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  Rice  on  Ev.,  150. 


504 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


404 


public  records  are  admissible  where  the  law  authorizes  the  rec- 
ord to  be  kept  and  the  instrument  to  be  recorded.^  3.  Where 
the  items  of  an  account  are  very  numerous  and  intricate  or 
documents  are  very  voluminous  and  all  that  is  essential  is  a 
summary  or  calculation,  a  qualified  witness  may  make  it  and 
give  parol  evidence  thereof.'^  4.  Inscriptions  on  tombstones, 
walls,  buildings,  or  other  immovables,  may  be  proved  by  oral 
evidence.^  5.  Where  a  writing  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  court  and  can  not  be  reached  by  its  process  parol  evi- 
dence may  be  given  of  its  contents.^  6.  Where  its  production 
is  physically  impossible,  as  in  case  of  its  loss,  or  is  in  the 
highest  degree  inconvenient,  parol  evidence  of  its  contents  may 
be  admitted  upon  a  proper  showing.^  7.  Where  it  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  opposite  party,  who  fails,  after  due  notice,  to  pro- 
duce it,  parol  evidence  of  its  contents  is  also  admissible.^  8. 
And  the  same  is  true  where  it  is  in  the  hands  of  a  stranger 
who  can  not  be  compelled  by  legal  authority  to  produce  it,  and 
who  declines,  after  service  of  proper  process,  to  produce  it.'' 


'  Wells,  Fargo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  105 
K.  Y.  670,  S.  C.  12  N.  E.  R.  42;  Hunt 
V.  Order  of  Chosen  Friends,  64  Mich. 
€71,  S.  C.  31  N.  W.  R.  576;  Blanchard 
V.  Young,  11  Cush.  (Mass.)  341 ;  Ham- 


5  Rex  V.  Hunt,  3  B.  &  Aid.  566 ;  Mor- 
timer?;. McCallam,  6  M.  &W.58;  Seb- 
ree  v.  Dorr,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  558;  De 
Lane  v.  Moore,  14  How.  (U.  S.)  253; 
Stebbins  v.  Duncan,  108  U.  S.  32;  Mc- 


mond  V.  Johnston,  93  Mo.  198,  S.  C.  6    Nutt  v.  McNutt,  116  Ind.  545,  S.  C.  2 
S.  W.  R.  83;    Pepoon  v.  Jenkins,   2    L.  R.  A.372;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co. 


Johns.  Cas.  119;  1  Rice  on  Ev.,  150. 
Compare  Russell  v.  Glasser,  93  Mo. 
353,  6  S.  W.  R.  362. 

*  Meyer  v.  Sefton,  2  Starkie,  244; 
Burton  v.  Driggs,  20  Wall.  125 ;  Home 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  93  U. 
S.  527 ;  Von  Sachs  v.  Kretz,  72  N.  Y. 
548;  Culver  v.  Marks,  122  Ind.  554, 
566;  Stephen'8Ev.,Art.  71;  IGreenl. 
Ev.,  §  93;  Taylor's  Ev.,  §  432. 


V.  Collins  (Kan.),  10  L.  R.  A.  515; 
Smith  V.  Arthur,  110  N.  Car.  400,  S.  C. 
15  S.  E.  R.  197;  Roehl  v.  Haumesser, 
114  Ind.  311. 

^  State  V.  Lockwood,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
144;  United  States  v.  Winchester,  2 
McLean,  135;  Portier  v.  Barclay,  15 
Ala.  439;  Winslow  v.  State,  92  Ala. 
78,  S.  C.  9  So.  R.  728;  Morse  v.  Wood- 
worth,  155  Mass.  233,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 


3  Bartholomew  v.  Stephens,  8  C.  &    525;  Keagle  v.  Pessell,  91  Mich.  618, 


P.  728;  1  Greenl.  Ev.,  §94. 


S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  58;  Cahen  v.  Con- 


*  Smith  V.   Traders'   Nat.  Bank,  82  tinental  Life  Ins.  Co.,  69  N.  Y.  300. 

Texas,  368,  S.C.  17  S.W.  R.  779;  Bur-  '  Roscoe's  Crim.  Ev.,  11;  Taylor's 

ton  V.  Driggs,  20  Wall.  125,  134;  Otto  Ev.,  407;  Mills  v.  Oddy,  6  C.  &P.  728; 

V.  Trump,  115  Pa.  St.  425,  S.  C.  8  Atl.  Hervey  v.  Edens,  69  Tex.  420,  S.  C.  6 

R.786;  Shepard  V.  Giddings,  22  Conn.  S.W.  R.  306;  Otto  v.  Trump,  115  Pa. 

282 ;  Rex  v.  Johnson,  7  East,  65.  St.  425.  See,  also,  Jackson  v.  Burtis,  14 


§  405  THE    INSTRUMENTS    OF    EVIDENCE.  505 

9.  So  where  the  document  is  first  brought  to  notice  on  the  ex- 
amination of  a  witness  on  his  voir  dire  the  court  may  admit 
parol  evidence  of  its  contents.^ 

§  405.    Layiiio:  the  t'oiindatiou  for  secondary  evidenee. — As 

ah'eady  shown,  there  arc  cases  in  whicli  secondary  evidence 
may  be  admissible  because  primary  evidence  can  not  be 
obtained.  But  in  order  to  render  such  evidence  admissible 
a  foundation  must  first  be  laid  for  its  introduction.  Thus, 
where  a  written  instrument  is  the  best  evidence,  but  can  not 
be  procured  because  the  instrument  is  lost,  parol  evidence 
of  its  contents  is  not  admissible  until  the  fact  of  its  loss  is 
proved  and  diligent  search  for  it  is  shown  to  have  been  made.^ 
So,  where  the  instrument  is  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court, 
in  the  hands  of  a  stranger,  or  in  the  possession  of  the  opposite 
party,  and,  indeed,  in  all  cases  in  which  secondary  evidence  is 
sought  to  be  introduced  upon  the  ground  that  primary  evidence 
could  not  be  obtained,  the  facts  justifying  its  introduction  must 
be  shown  before  it  will  be  admitted. 

§  406.  Notice  to  produce  documents. — Where  the  writing  is 
in  the  possession  or  control  of  the  adverse  party,  notice  to  pro- 
duce it  should  be  served  upon  him,  or  his  attorney,  a  reason- 
able time  before  trial,  in  order  to  let  in  secondary  evidence  of 

Johns.(N.Y.)  391;  People r.  Benjamin,  Dec.  45G;  Simpson  r.  Dall,3  Wall.  (U. 

9  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.)  419;  Durkee  v.  Le-  S.)  460;  Perrin  v.  State,  81  Wis.  135, 

land,  4  Vt.  612;  Thompson-Houston  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  516;  Yavapai  Co.  v. 

Electric  Co.  V.  Palmer  (Minn.),  53  N.  O'Neil  (Ariz.),  29  Pac.  R.  430;  Collar 

W.  R.  1137.  V.  Collar,  86  Mich.  507,  S.  C.  13  L.  R. 

'  Rex  i'.  Gisburn.  15  East,57  ;  Butch-  A.  621.     As  to  what  is  sufficient  dili- 

er's  Co.  V.  Jones,  1  Esp.160;  Miller  r.  gence,seeDaly  t".  Bernstein(N.  Mex.), 

Mariners'  Church,  7  Me.  51.  28  Pac.  R.  764;  Waggoner  v.  Alvord, 

''  Anglo-American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Can-  81  Texas,  365,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  1083; 

non,  31  Fed.  R.  313;  Gordon  v.  State,  Gray  r.  Thomas,  83  Texas,  246,  S.  C. 

48  N.  J.  L.  611,  S.  C.  7  Atl.  R.  476,  and  18  S.  W.  R.  721 ;  Darrow  v.  Pierce,  91 

note;  Myers  i;.  Bealer,  30  Neb.  280,  S.  Mich.63,  S.  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  813;  Bn- 

C.  46  N.  W.  R.  479;  Berdel  r.  Egan,  chanan  r.  Wise  (Neb.),  52  N.  W.  R. 

125  111.298;  Kearney  r.  New  York,  92  163;    Hotchkiss  v.   Mosher,  48  N.  Y. 

N.  Y.  617;  Trammell  v.  Hudnion,  86  478;  Bascom  r.  Toner,  5Ind.  App.229, 

Ala.  472;  Low  v.  Tandy,  70  Tex.  745 ;  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  856. 
note  to  Martin  v.  AVillianis,  97  Am. 


506 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§406 


its  contents  in  case  it  is  not  produced.^  If  there  is  reason  to 
believe  tliat  it  is  in  the  hands  of  tlie  opposite  party,  it  is  safest 
to  give  notice  to  produce  it  even  though  he  has  denied  having 
it.^  It  is  also  safest  to  give  the  notice  in  writing, -"^  but  a  verbal 
notice  has  been  held  sufficient  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  re- 
quiring it  to  be  in  writing.'^  The  notice  should  contain  a  par- 
ticular description  of  the  book  or  document  called  for  and  must 
be  reasonably  certain  and  explicit.^  What  is  a  reasonable  no- 
tice, as  to  time,  depends  largely  upon  the  circumstances  of  each 
particular  case,  such  as  the  distance  of  the  document  from  the 
court  or  the  like.^  Notice  given  to  produce  a  paper  at  the  trial 
is  sufficient  although  the  case  is  not  tried  until  a  subsequent 
term,'  and  it  will  even  be  good  at  any  subsequent  trial,  with- 
out a  second  notice.^  The  effect  of  a  proper  notice  is  to  render 
secondary  evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  document  admissible 


^  Jefford  V.  Einggold,6  Ala.544 ;  Cody 
V.  Hough,  20  111.  43 ;  Durkee  v.  Leland, 
4  Vt.  612;  Grimes?;.  Fall,  15  Cal.  63; 
Muller  V.  Hoyt,  14  Tex.  49;  Farmers', 
etc.,  Bank  v.  Lonergan,  21  Mo.  46; 
Anderson  Bridge  Co.  v.  Applegate,  13 
Ind.  339;  Rogers  v.  Van  Hoesen,  12 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  221 ;  Shreve  v.  Dulany, 
1  Cranch.  (U.  S.)  499;  Roberts  v. 
Dixon,  50  Kan.  436,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R. 
1083 ;  Pitt  V.  Emmons,  92  Mich.  542, 
S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  1004.  But  there  are 
cases  in  which  it  has  been  held  that 
service  of  notice  to  produce  is  unnec- 
essary, as  where  it  is  alleged  in  a  plead- 
ing that  the  adverse  party  has  posses- 
sion of  the  document.  Hardin  v.  Kret- 
singer,  17  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  293;  For- 
ward V.  Harris,  30  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  338; 
Nealley  v.  Greenough,  25  N.  H.  325; 
How  V.  Hall,  14  East,  273;  Scott  v. 
Jones,  4  Taunt.  865.  Or  has  obtained 
possession  of  it  by  force  or  fraud. 
Scott  t7.  Pentz,  5  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  572; 
Leeds  v.  Cook,  4  Esp.  256 ;  Morgan  v. 
Jones,  24  Ga.  155. 


» Grimm  v.  Hamel,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.) 
434. 

*  Cummings  v.  McKinney,  5  111.  57. 

*  Houseman  v.  Roberts,  5  C.  &  P. 
394;  Gates  v.  Winter,  3  Term  R.  306; 
Kerr  v.  McGuire,  28  N.  Y.  446. 

°  Bogart  V.  Brown,  5  Pick.  (Mass.) 
18;  France  v.  Lucy,  Ry.  &  M.  341; 
United  States  v.  Duff,  6  Fed.  Rep.  45 ; 
Stalker  v.  Gaunt,  12  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs. 
124;  Taylor's  Ev.,  §413;  1  Wharton's 
Ev.  (3d  ed.)  154,  note.  It  should  also 
be  entitled  in  the  cause,  but  this  is  not 
material  if  the  party  is  not  misled. 
Lawrence  v.  Clark,  14  Mees.  &  W.  250. 
See,  also,  Frank  v.  Manny,  2  Daly  (N. 
Y.),  92. 

«  Utica  Ins.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  3  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  296;  McPherson  i\  Rathbone, 
7  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  216;  Littleton  v. 
Clayton,  77  Ala.  571 ;  Dewitt  v.  Pres- 
cott,  51  Mich.  298;  Shreve  v.  Dulany, 
1  Cranch.  (U.  S.)  499. 

'Jackson  v.  Shearman,  6  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  19. 

8  Hope  V.  Beadon,  17  Q.  B.  509 ;  Raw- 
son  V.  Knight,  73  Me.  340. 


§  407  THE    INSTKUMKNTS    OF    KVI  DKN'CE.  507 

in  case  it  is  not  produced.^  The  instrument  must,  however, 
be  shown  by  competent  evidence  to  be  in  the  possession  or  con- 
trol of  the  opposite  party  ,*^  Where  tlie  document  is  in  the  pos- 
session of  a  third  person  it  may  generally  be  brought  into  court 
by  means  of  a  subpwna  duces  tecum,'^  but  where  he  is  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  it  has  been  held  that  secondary 
evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  instrument  will  be  admitted 
without  a  notice  to  produce  it.*  As  a  stranger  might  volun- 
tarily bring  it  into  court,  however,  although  he  could  not  be 
compelled  to,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  party  desiring  to  introduce 
secondary  evidence  in  such  a  case  should  show  that  he  had 
made  reasonable  efforts  to  obtain  the  original  document. 

§  407.  Depositions. — It  is  better,  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown, 
to  bring  the  witnesses  into  the  presence  of  the  jury,  but  this 
can  not  always  be  done.  It  is  often  necessary  to  take  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses  in  the  form  of  dejDositions.  When  deposi- 
tions of  material  witnesses  are  to  be  taken  the  prudent  course 
is,  where  practicable  and  not  forbidden,  for  the  advocate  to  at- 
tend the  examination  in  person,  or  to  secure  the  attendance  of 
counsel  fully  informed  as  to  the  issues,  the  material  points  of 
the  case,  and  the  facts  of  which  the  witness  is  supposed  to 
have  knowledge.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  frame  a  series  of 
questions  that  will  fully  elicit  the  facts,  nor,  indeed,  is  it  easy 
to  prepare  questions  that  are  not  liable  to  mislead  or  confuse 
the  witness.  If  an  examining  counsel  is  present  errors  may 
be  corrected,  obscurities  removed,  plain  questions  substituted 
for  obscure  ones,  and  the  testimony  be  brought  out  with  much 
more  force  and  clearness  than  by  written  questions. 

§408.   Rules  governing  the  taking  of  depositions. — The 

>  McKellip  r.  Mollhenny,  4  Watts.  *  Birkbeck  v.  Tm-ker,  2  Hall  (N.Y.), 

(Pa.)  317,  S.  C.  28  Am.  Dec.  711 ;  Com.  121 ;  Reilly  v.  Lee,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  813. 

iJ.  Goldstein,    114  Mass.   272;    Augur  But  slight  evidence  has  been  held  suf- 

Steel,  etc.,  Co.*t'.  Whittier,  117  :\Iass.  ficient.     Robb  r.  Starkey,  2  Car.  &  K. 

451 ;  Life  and  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mechan-  143 ;  Norton  v.  Hey  wood,  20  Me.  3o9. 

ics',  etc.,  Co.,  7  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  31;  'Thomp.  Tr.,  §  175. 

Pangborn  r.  Continental  Insurance  *  Shepard  c  Giddings,  22  Conn.  282. 
Co.  (Mich.),  29  N.  W.  R.  -!75. 


508 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§408 


rules  of  practice  to  be  observed  in  taking  depositions  are  those 
provided  by  the  statute  of  the  State  or  country  from  whicii  the 
commission  or  dedimus  issues,  and  not  those  obtaining  in  the 
jurisdiction  where  the  witness  is  found,  unless  they  are  the 
same.^  A  commissioner  appointed  to  take  testimony  can  not 
delegate  his  authority.'^  Notice  must  be  given  of  the  time  and 
place  of  taking  the  deposition.  Where  the  time  for  which 
notice  is  required  to  be  given  is  not  specifically  fixed  by  stat- 
ute, a  reasonable  notice  should  be  given, ^  and  in  determining 
its  sufficiency  the  courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  distances, 
and  facilities  for  travel.*  The  notice  must  describe  the  place 
of  taking  the  deposition  with  reasonable  certainty.^  When 
necessary,  the  officer  may  continue  the  taking  from  day  to  day 
until  it  is  completed.^  Although  not  required  in  all  jurisdic- 
tions, it  is  safest  to  have  the  witness  sworn  before  the  exam- 
ination.''    Where  the  deposition  is  taken  in  the  ordinary  man- 

1  City  Bank  v.  Young,  43  N.  H.  457 ; 
Bostwick  V.  Lewis,  1  Day's  Cases,  33; 
Thompson  v.  Wilson,  34  Ind.  94.  So 
the  act  of  Congress  governs  in  the  tak- 
ing of  depositions  to  be  used  in  the 
United  States  courts.  Randall  t\Ven- 
able,  17  Fed.  R.  162.  Compare  McClas- 
key  V.  Barr,  47  Fed.  R.  154.  The  stat- 
ute should  be  followed  in  all  material 
respects.  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Evansich, 
61  Tex.  3 ;  Simpson  v.  Carleton,  1  Allen 
(Mass.),  109;  Simpson  v.  Dix,  131 
Mass.  179;  Johnson  v.  Perry,  54  Vt. 
459;  Baxter  v.  Payne,  1  Pinn.  501. 

*Cappeauw.  Middleton,  1  Har.  &  G. 
154 ;  Urquhart  v.  Burleson,  6  Tex.  502. 
But  it  seems  that  where  the  officer  be- 
fore whom  the  deposition  is  to  be  taken 
is  not  required  to  be  specified  in  the 
notice,  naming  a  particular  officer 
therein  will  not  render  the  deposition 
invalid  because  it  is  taken  before  an- 
other officer.  Harvey  ?'.  Osborn,  55 
Ind.  535.  The  only  mode  by  which  a 
deposition  can  be  taken  in  a  foreign 
country  is  under  a  commission.  Stein 
V.  Bowman,  13  Peters  (U.  S.),  209. 


'Henthorn  v.  Doe,  1  Blackf.  157; 
Cefret  v.  Burch,  1  Blackf.  400;  Att- 
wood  V.  Fricot,  17  Cal.  37,  S.  C.  76  Am. 
Dec.  567. 

*  Hijies  V.  Cochran,  13  Ind.  175; 
Manning  v.  Gasharie,  27  Ind.  399; 
Carlisle  v.  Tuttle,  30  Ala.  613. 

*  Rodman  v.  Kelly,  13  Ind.  377 ;  Har- 
ris V.  Hill,  7  Ark.  452.  But  defects  in 
the  notice  may  be  waived  by  an  ap- 
pearance at  the  taking  of  the  deposi- 
tion without  objection.  Prather  v. 
Pritchard,  26  Ind.  65;  Doe  v.  Brown, 
8  Blackf.  443;  George  v.  Nichols,  32 
Me.  179.  And  a  change  in  the  place 
named  without  objection  will  not  be 
cause  for  suppressing  the  deposition. 
Gartside  Coal  Co.r^.  Maxwell,  20  F«d. 
R.  187.  As  to  what  the  notice  should 
contain,  and  for  the  usual  form,  see 
Weeks  on  Depositions,  Ch.  VII. 

« Ulmer  v.  Austill,  9  Port. (Ala.)  157 ; 
King  V.  State,  15  Ind.  64.  But  the 
time  to  which  an  adjournment  is  made 
should  be  stated.  Bennett  v.  Bennett, 
37  W.  Va.  396,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  638. 

'  Stonebreaker  v.  Short,  8  Pa.  St.  155 ; 


^408 


TIl!':    INSTKUMEXTS    OK    KVIDENCE. 


509 


ner,  and  not  by  interrogatories  previously  prepared,  the  party 
against  whom  it  is  to  be  used  has  a  right  to  cross-examine  the 
witness.'  Objections  to  tlie  form  of  a  question,  as  leading  or 
the  like,  or  as  to  the  manner  of  taking  the  deposition,  should, 
as  a  rule,  be  made  at  the  time.^  In  some  jurisdictions  objec- 
tions to  the  competency  of  the  witness  must  be  made  before 
trial;  in  others  they  may  be  made  at  or  during  the  trial. '^ 
Provision  is  also  generally  made  for  taking  depositions  by  in- 
terrogatories previously  prepared,  and,  in  such  case,  no  cross- 
examination  is  allowed,  except  by  cross-interrogatories,  and 
the  mere  presence  of  the  attorney  of  either  party  at  the  taking 
has  been  held  sufficient  cause  for  rejecting  a  deposition.^  All 
pertinent  and  proper  interrogatories  and  cross-interrogatories 
must  be  answered.^  Where  depositions  are  taken  under  a  com- 
mission, they  should  be  subscribed  by  the  witness,  although 
it  has  been  held  sufficient  by  some  of  the  courts  if  the  fact  that 
the  witness  was  duly  sworn  appears  from  the  certificate;^  and 
the  signature  of  the  commissioner  seems  to  be  absolutely  nec- 
essary.' Exhibits  should  be  referred  to  in  the  body  of  the 
deposition  and  marked  and  annexed  thereto,  or  otherwise 
clearly  identified.^ 


Thioband  r.  Sebastian,  10  Ind.  454; 
Fisk  V.  Tank,  12  Wis.  27G,  S.  C.  78  Am. 
Dec.  7.37.  But,  see  Tooker  v.  Thomp- 
son, 3  McLean,  92;  Barron  v.  Peter, 
18  Vt.  385. 

'  Dannefelser  v.  Weigel,  27  Mo.  45; 
Stille  V.  Layton,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  149; 
Laidley  v.  Rogers,  22  N.  Y.  Supp.  468. 

*  Croft  V.  Rains,  10  Tex.  520;  Crow- 
ell  V.  Bank,  3  Ohio  St.  406;  Chambers 
V.  Hunt,  22  N.  J.  L.  552;  Donnell  v. 
Jones,  13  Ala.  490,  S.C.  48  Am.  Dec.  59. 

'See  authorities  cited  in  "Rules  of 
Practice  on  Taking  Depositions,"  22 
Cent.  L.  J.  581,  585.  Unless  the  prac- 
tice is  clearly  settled,  however,  it  is 
safest  to  make  the  objection  at  the 
earliest  opportunity,  and,  if  necessary, 
it  can  be  repeated  at  the  trial. 

*  Hollister  v.  Hollister,  6  Pa.  St.  449. 


^Nicholson  r.  Desobr)%  14  La.  Ann. 
81;  Kimball  v.  Davis,  19  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  437.  But  portion^  not  responsive 
to  the  interrogatories  will  be  excluded 
on  motion.  McCarver  v.  Nealey,  1 
Greene  (la.),  360;  Lee  v.  Stowe,  57 
Tex.  444. 

« See  22  Cent.  L.  J.  581,  584,  and  au- 
thorities cited.  See,  also,  Celluloid 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Arlington,  etc.,  Co.,  47 
Fed.  R.  4. 

'  Price  V.  Emerson,  16  La.  Ann.  95. 

*Brumskill  v.  James,  11  N.  Y.  294; 
Dailey  r.  Green,  15  Pa.  St.  118;  Weid- 
ner  r.  Conner,  9  Pa.  St.  78;  Dodge  r. 
Israel,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  323;  Mobley  r. 
Leophart,  51  Ala.  587 ;  Gimbel  v.  Huf- 
ford,  46  Ind.  125;  Huston  r.  Roots,  30 
Ind.  461 ;  Toby  v.  Oregon  Pac.  R.  R. 
Co.  (Cal.),  33  Pac.  R.  550. 


510  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  409 

§  409.  Certificate — What  it  should  show. — The  statutes  of 
the  various  States  usually  prescribe  what  the  certificate  should 
show,  and  where  they  do  not  it  is  safest,  though  held  unneces- 
sary in  some  cases,  to  show  that  all  the  statutory  steps  have 
been  taken. ^  Where  the  certificate  is  informal  or  defective  it 
may  be  amended  by  the  officer  on  leave  of  court. ^  When  a 
commission  is  addressed  to  a  resident  of  another  State  by  name, 
no  proof  of  his  official  character  or  signature  is  necessary  ;''^  but 
where  the  officer  has  no  seal,  and  is  not  named  in  the  commis- 
sion, his  certificate  is  generally  required  to  be  authenticated 
under  the  seal  of  a  court  of  record.* 

§  410.  Return  and  publication.  —  After  the  deposition  is 
duly  taken  and  authenticated  it  should  be  placed  in  an  envel- 
ope, properly  sealed,  and  returned  with  the  commission  to  the 
court  from  which  it  issued.  The  provisions  of  the  statute 
should  be  followed  and  the  names  of  the  parties  and  witnesses 
should  be  indorsed  on  the  envelope,  which  should  then  be  ad- 
dressed and  mailed  to  the  clerk  of  the  court  in  which  the  ac- 
tion is  pending.  In  a  recent  case  it  was  held,  under  a  statute 
providing  that  the  deposition  should  be  delivered  by  the  officer 
taking  it,  with  his  own  hand,  into  the  court  for  which  it  was 
taken,  or  by  him  sealed  up  and  forwarded  to  such  court  either 
by  mail  or  express,  and  remain  under  his  seal  until  opened  in 
court,  that  a  deposition  sent  by  mail  in  a  sealed  envelope  wa& 
not  admissible  where  the  envelope  was  neither  sealed  with  wax 
bearing  an  impression  of  the  notary's  seal  nor  indorsed  by  the 

'  See  22  Cent.  L.  J.  581,  585,  and  au-  ton,  37  Ark.  286;  Oatman  v.  Andrew, 

thorities  cited.     Also,  Madison,  I.  &  43  Vt.  466;  Jenkins ??.  Anderson  (Pa.), 

P.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Whitesel,  11  Ind.  55;  11  Atl.  R.  558;    Eller  v.  Richardson, 

Thieband  v.  Sebastian,  10  Ind.  454;  89  Tenn.  575,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R.  650. 

Simpson  v.  Carleton,  1  Allen,  109,  S.  Compare  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

C.  79  Am.  Dec.  707,  and  note  716;  Matula,  79  Tex.  577,  S.  C.  15  S.  W.  R. 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Collins,  45  573. 

Kan.  88,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  187,  S.  C.  10        =•  Bradford  v.  Cooper,  1  La.  Ann.  325; 

L.  R.  A.  515.  Kendall  v.  Limberg,  69  111.  355. 

'^Donahue  v.   Roberts,   19   Fed.  R.        *Baber  v.   Rickhart,   52   Ind.   594; 

863 ;  Gartside  Coal  Co.  v.  Maxwell,  20  Jenkins  v.  Tobin,  31  Ark.  306 ;  Wheelei 

Fed.   R.   187;    Wolfe  v.   Underwood  u.  Shields,  2  Scam.  (111.)  348. 
(Ala.),  12  So.  R.  234;    Conger  v.  Cot- 


§  411  THE    INSTRUMENTS    OF    EVIDENCE.  51i 

notary.^  But  this  seems  to  us  to  be  an  exceedingly  strict  con- 
struction of  the  statute,  and  the  general  rule  is  that  a  substan- 
tial compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements  is  sufficient.'^ 
After  the  deposition  is  returned  it  should  be  tiled  and  pub- 
lished. The  publication  may  be  made  upon  the  motion  of 
either  party. '"^ 

§  411.  Motion  to  suppress. — Where  a  deposition  is  fatally 
defective  because  of  the  failure  to  comply  with  some  statutory 
requirement,  it  is  proper  to  move  to  suppress  it  before  the 
trial;^  but  objections  to  particular  c{uestions  or  answers  are 
generally  made  in  the  same  manner  as  upon  the  examination 
of  a  witness  in  court.  A  motion  to  strike  out  improper  an- 
swers may  also  be  resorted  to.  Objections  to  the  validity  or 
admissibility  of  depositions  by  motion  to  suppress,  or  otherwise, 
must  be  specific/''  and  the  order  suppressing  the  deposition,  or 
any  part  of  it,  must  be  definite  and  certain.^ 

§  412.  Use  of  depositions. — The  provisions  of  the  statute 
will,  of  course,  determine  under  what  circumstances  deposi- 
tions may  be  taken  and  used;  but  they  are  usually  permitted 
to  be  taken  where  a  witness  is  out  of  the  jurisdiction,  aged  and 
infirm,  sick,  or  going  abroad,  to  be  used  in  the  event  of  his 
inability  to  attend  the  trial."     Under  many  of  the  statutes  sat- 

^Travers  v.  Jennings  (S.  Car.),  17  a  matter  of  course,  while  in  others  an 

&.  E.  R.  849.  order  of  court  is   necessary.     Weeks 

'Goodyear  v.  Vosburg,  41  Plow.  Pr.  on  Depositions,  §448. 

(N.  Y.)  421 ;  Hall  v.  Barton,  25  Barb.  *  AVeeks  on  Depositions,  §§  365,  378. 

(N.  Y.)  274;    Egbert  v.  Citizens'  Ins.  See,  also,  Bibb  v.  Allen,  149  U.  S.481, 

Co.,  7  Fed.  R.  47;  Whittaker  v.  Voor-  S.  C.  13  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  950.     Holding 

hees,  38  Kan.  71,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  874;  that  a  motion  to  suppress  came  too 

Killian  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  78  late  when  made  upon    the    day  for 

Ga.  749,  S.  C.  3  S.  E.  R.  621 ;  Weeks  which  the  trial  was  set. 

on  Depositions,  §§  343,   362.    The  ob-  ^Hunt  v.  Bailey,  4  Ind.  (i30;  Petti- 

jection  that  the  names  of  the  witnesses  grew  v.  Barnum,  11  Md.  434,  S.  C.  69 

are  not  indorsed  upon  the  envelope  Am.  Dec.  212;    Alaggart  v.  Freeman, 

must  precede  the   publication.     Lin-  27  Ind.  531  ;  Commercial  Bank  r. Union 

genfelserr.  Simon,  49  Ind.  82.  Bank,  11  X.  Y.  203;  Whittaker  v.  Sig- 

*The  practice  varies  somewhat  in  ler,  44  Iowa,  419. 

different  States.     In  some  the  dejiosi-  •*  Hays  r.  Hynds,  28  Ind.  531. 

tions  may  be  published  or  opened  as  '  Norris  v.  Norris,  3  Ind.  App.  500, 


512 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§412 


isfactory  proof  of  the  inability  of  the  witness  to  attend  or  of 
the  impossibility  of  procuring  or  compelling  his  attendance 
must  be  made  before  the  deposition  can  be  used  upon  the  trial, ^ 
but  in  Illinois  it  has  been  held  that  the  deposition  of  a  witness 
may  be  read  although  he  is  present  in  court, ^  and  in  Indiana 
it  has  been  held  that  when  the  deposition  of  a  witness  who 
does  not  reside  in  the  county  of  the  trial,  or  in  an  adjoining 
county,  has  been  taken  by  one  party,  the  fact  that  the  other 
party  has  procured  his  attendance  and  examined  him  during 
the  trial,  will  not  prevent  the  party  who  took  the  deposition 
from  reading  it  if  the  witness  has  been  discharged  and  is  not 
in  court  at  the  time  the  deposition  is  offered.-^  A  deposition 
taken  at  the  instance  of  one  party,  and  not  used  by  him,  may 
be  read  in  evidence  by  the  opposite  party.*  The  deposition  of 
a  witness  taken  in  another  action  relating  to  the  same  subject- 
matter  and  between  the  same  parties  in  interest  may  also  be 
read  in  evidence,  where  the  witness  has  died  in  the  meantime.^ 


S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  1014;  Hunsinger  v. 
Hofer,  110  Ind.390;  Pollard  v.  Lively, 
2  Gratt.  (Va.)  216;  Commercial  Bank 
V.  Whitehead,  4  Ala.  637;  Goodwyn-y. 
Lloyd,  8  Port.  (Ala.)  237. 

1  Emlaw  V.  Emlaw,  20  Mich.  11 ;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Brown,  44  Kan. 
384, 24  Pac.  R.  497 ;  Whitford  v.  County 
of  Clark  (U.S.), 7  Sup.  Ct.R.  306 ;  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  Co.  V.  Maples,  63  Ala.  601; 
Jackson  v.  Rice,  3  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  180; 
Park  V.Willis,  1  Cranch,  C.  C.  357 ;  Sax 
V.  Davis,  71  la.  406,  32  N.  W.  R.  403 ; 
Everett  v.  Tidball  (Neb.),  52  N.  W.  R. 
816;  Weeks  on  Depositions,  §476.  The 
reasons  for  using  the  deposition  must 
exist  at  the  time  of  the  trial.  Stockton 
V.  Graves,  10  Ind.  294;  Ilaun  v.  Wil- 
son, 28  Ind.  296;  Indianapolis,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Stout,  53  Ind.  143.  See, 
also,  Hewlett  v.  George,  68  Miss.  703, 
S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  682. 

*  Bradley  v.  Geiselman,  17  111.  571. 

3  Shirts  V.  Irons,  37  Ind.  98.  See, 
also,  Abies  v.  Miller,  12  Texas,  109; 


Phenix  v.  Baldwin,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
62;  Barton  v.  Trent,  3  Head.  (Tenn.) 
167. 

*  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Rhutasel,  67  la. 
316;  Adams  v.  Russell,  85  111.  284; 
Woodruff  V.  Garner,  39  Ind.  246 ;  Byers 
V.  Orensstein,  42  Minn.386,  44  N.W.  R. 
129;  Rucker  v.  Reid,  36  Kan.  468; 
Chase  v.  Springvale  Mills,  75  Me.  156; 
Dana  v.  Underwood,  19  Pick.  (Mass.) 
99;  Fountain  v.  Ware,  56  Ala.  558; 
McClintock  v.  Curd,  32  Mo.  411.  But 
it  has  been  held  that  where  this  is 
done  the  party  at  whose  instance  it 
was  taken  may  object  to  improper  in- 
terrogatories propounded  by  himself. 
Hatch  V.  Brown,  63  Me.  410.  See, 
also,  Gilpins  v.  Consequa,  Pet.  C.  C. 
85.  See,  generally.  Weeks  on  Depo- 
sitions, §  465,  et  seq. 

*  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howard, 
13  How.  (U.S.)  307;  Goodrich  w.  Han- 
son, 33  111.  498 ;  Leviston  v.  French,  45 
N.  H.  21 ;  Berney  v.  Mitchell,  34  N.  J. 
L.  337 ;  Adams  v.  Raigner,  69  Mo.  363; 


H13 


THK  INSTRUMENTS  OF  KVIDLNCK. 


513 


But  depositions  taken  in  one  suit  can  not  be  used  in  another 
against  a  person  who  was  not  a  party  to  the  former  suit  and 
had  no  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the  witness.^  Depositions 
read  at  the  trial  of  a  cause  may  be  used  upon  a  new  trial  of  the 
same  cause. ^  And  a  deposition  read  without  objection  can  not 
afterwards  be  excluded  because  of  any  known  defect  existing 
at  the  time  it  was  road;"^  but  it  has  been  held  that  an  agreement 
that  a  deposition  may  be  used  upon  all  trials  of  the  same  cause 
-does  not  render  an  objectionable  portion  of  it  admissil-)le  where 
the  objection  is  seasonably  made.* 


§  413.  Waiver  of  objections. — It  is  a  safe  rule  to  make  ob- 
jections at  the  earliest  opportunity.  Appearing  and  taking 
part  in  the  examination  may  constitute  a  waiver  of  many  ob- 
jections,'"^  and,  as  a  general  rule,  all  formal  objections  such  as 
might  be  remedied  by  amendment  or  retaking  the  deposition 
should  be  made  before  the  trial. ^     But  objections  that  go  to 


Earl  V.  Hurd,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  248; 
Eckman  v.  Eckman,  68  Pa.  St.  460. 
But  see  Sewall  v.  Robbins,  139  Mass. 
164,  in  which  the  subject-matter  was 
different.  So,  it  may  be  used  if  the 
witness  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court.  Weeks  on  Depositions,  §  470. 

'  Rutherford  v.  Geddes,  4  Wall.  (IT. 
S.)  220;  Tappanv.Beardsley.lOWall. 
(U.  S.)  427;  Earl  v.  Hurd,"  5  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  248;  Borders  r.  Barber,  81  Mo. 
63G;  Turnleyt'.  Hanna  (Ala.),  2  So. 
R.  483 ;  Cookson  v.  Richardson,  69  111. 
137;  Bartelott  ».  International  Bank, 
119  111.  2.59.  "Identity  of  subject- 
matter  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  iden- 
tity of  parties  in  interest  must  unite 
to  render  a  deposition  in  one  case  ad- 
missible in  another."  Fearn  v.  West 
Jersey  Ferry  Co.,  143  Pa.  St.  122,  13 
L.  r!  A.  366,  369. 

»Spence  v.   Smith,    18  N.    H.  587; 

Pulaski  V.  Ward.  2  Rich.   (So.  Car.) 

119;  Walton  v.  Walton,  63  Vt.  513,  S. 

C.  22  Atl.  R.  617.     So  held  where  they 

33 


had  been  read  by  consent  upon  the 
first  trial.  Vattier  v.  Hinde,  7  Peters 
(U.S.),  252;  Edmondson  v.  Barrell, 
2  Cranch  C.  C.  228,  232. 

'Evans  r.  Ilettich,  7  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 
453;  Brackett  v.  Nikirk,  20  111.  App. 
525. 

*  Bridgham's  Appeal,  82  Me.  323. 

5  Barnhardt  v.  Smith,  86  N.  Car.  473 ; 
Shutte  V.  Thompson,  15  Wall.  151; 
Long  V.  Straus,  124  Ind.  84;  Doe  r. 
Brown,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.)  443 ;  Waldron 
V.  St.  Paul,  33  Minn.  87;  Goodfellow 
V.  Landis,  36  Mo.  168;  Weil  r.  Silver- 
stone,  6  Bush.  (Ky.)  698;  Milton  r. 
Rowland,  11  Ala.  7.32;  Nevan  r.  Roup, 
8  Iowa,  207;  Quailras  r.  Webster,  11 
La.  Ann.  203;  Cameron  r.  Cameron, 
15  Wis.  1 ;  Weeks  on  Depositions, 
§§  276,  277,  424,  et  seq.  Contra,  where 
a  party's  attorney  is  merely  present 
and  takes  no  part.  Harris  v.  Wall,  7 
How.  (U.  S.)  692 ;  Beasloy  r.  Downey, 
10  Ired.  (N.  Car.)  284. 

*  Holman    v.    Bachus,    73   Mo.   49; 


514 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§414 


the  substance,  such  as  the  competency  and  relevancy  of  the 
evidence,  if  they  are  unknown  and  not  disclosed  by  the  depo- 
sition, may  generally  be  made  upon  the  trial. ^  So,  the  taking 
of  a  deposition  to  break  the  force  of  the  deposition  of  the  same 
witness  previously  taken  by  the  other  party  has  been  held  not 
to  be  a  waiver  of  objections  to  the  competency  of  the  witness.^ 
Notwithstanding  an  objection  or  a  motion  to  suppress  a  depo- 
sition is  made  in  the  trial  court,  if  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  ruled  on,  it  will  be  deemed,  on  appeal,  to  have  been 
waived.-^ 


§  414.    Discovery — Examination  of  party  before  trial. — In 

former  times  the  manner  of  detaining  a  discovery  in  aid  of  an 
action  at  law  was  usually  by  filing  a  bill  of  discovery  in  a  court 
of  equity,  but  this  practice  has  been  largely  superseded,  under 
modern  statutes,  by  filing  interrogatories  with  the  pleadings^ 
to  be  answered  by  the  opposite  party,*  or  by  examining  him 
outside  of  court  in  much  the  same  way  as  depositions  are  taken. ^ 


Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Maples, 
63  Ala.  601 ;  Truman  v.  Scott,  72  Ind. 
258;  Doane  v.  Glenn,  21  Wall.  33; 
Claxton  i'.  Adams,  1  McArthur,  496; 
Bell  V.  Jamison,  102  Mo.  71 ;  Uhle  v. 
Burnham,  44  Fed.  Rep.  729;  Stall  u. 
Howard,  26  Ind.  456;  Glenn  v.  Clore, 
42  Ind.  60;  Wright  v.  Cabot,  89  N.  Y. 
570;  Sheldon  v.  Burry,  39  111.  App. 
154;  Delisle  v.  McGillivary,  24  Mo. 
App.  680 ;  Akers  t).  Demond,  103  Mass. 
318;  Rowe  v.  Godfrey,  16  Me.  128; 
Newton  v.  Porter,  69  N.  Y.  133;  Greg- 
orys. Dodge,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  593; 
Weeks  on  Depositions,  §§  392,  440. 

'  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  i'.  Maples, 
63  Ala.  601 ;  Robinius  v.  Lister,  30  Ind. 
142 ;  Tays  v.  Carr,  37  Kan.  141, 14  Pac. 
R.  456 ;  Leavitt  v.  Baker,  82  Me.  26, 
S.  C.  19  Atl.  R.  86;  Smithwick  v.  An- 
der-son,  2  Swan  (Tenn.),  573;  Tallot 
V.  Clark,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  51;  Corgan 
V.  Anderson,  30  111.  95 ;  Swift  v.  Castle, 
23   111.   209;  Adams   v.  Wadleigh,  10 


Gray  (Mass.),  360;  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Theobald,  51  Ind.  246; 
Myers  v.  Murphy,  60  Ind.  282. 

2  ^tna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Deming,  123 
Ind.  384. 

3  Hanks  v.  Van  Garder,  59  la.  179; 
Graydon  v.  Gaddis,  20  Ind.  515;  Mc- 
Ginnis  v.  Gabe,  78  Ind.  457 ;  Garvin  v. 
Luttrell,  10  Humph.  (Tenn.)  16;  Cam- 
eron r>.  Cameron,  15  Wis.  1;  Fant  v. 
Miller,  17  Gratt.  (Va.)  187;  Corn  v. 
Sims,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  391 ;  Weeks  on 
Depositions,  §  441.  This  is,  indeed, 
the  general  rule  in  all  cases.  The  ob- 
jection should  be  duly  made,  a  ruling 
obtained,  and  an  exception  taken  to 
the  ruling. 

Ml  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  526,  . 
534;  Fels  v.  Raymond,  139  Mass.  98; 
Tillinghast  rK  Nourse,  14  Ga.  641  ;  Gates 
V.  Thayer,  93  Ind.  156,  157;  Sherman 
V.  Ilogland,  73  Ind.  472 ;  Hill  v.  Nisbet, 
100  Ind.  341  ;  Rice  v.  Derby,  7  Ind.  649. 

=  Barnard  v.  Flinn,  8  Ind.  204;  Ma- 


§  415  TIIK    INSTKUMKNTS    OF    KVIDKNCK.  515 

It  has  been  held  that  one  who  has  complied  with  an  order  to 
answer  interrogatories  may  also  be  compelled  to  testify  as  a 
witness/  and  this  seems  to  us  to  be  the  true  rule,  but  in  New 
York  it  seems  that  the  examination  of  a  party  before  trial  pre- 
cludes a  further  examination,  in  regard  to  the  same  subject- 
matter,  upon  the  trial. ^  A  party  will  not  be  compelled  to 
answer  an  interrogatory  which  tends  to  criminate  himself  or 
expose  him  to  fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures.-^ 

§  415.  Choice  of  instruments  of  evidence. — There  is  some- 
times a  choice  between  the  instruments  of  evidence.  Thus, 
where  several  persons  have  seen  an  occurrence,  and  of  the  sev- 
eral some  are  good  and  some  bad,  choice  may  be  made  of  the 
good  to  the  exclusion  of  the  bad.  A  few  good  witnesses,  in- 
telligent, frank,  well-mannered,  and  of  good  repute,  are  better 
than  many,  if  of  the  many  a  considerable  number  are  bad.  In 
proving  reputation,  it  is  of  great  importance  that  the  best  wit- 
nesses at  command  be  obtained,  and  this  is  true  where  reputation 
is  assailed.  But  the  instance  we  have  given  is  by  no  means  the 
only  one  in  which  it  is  of  importance  to  secure  the  best  wit- 
nesses, although,  perhaps,  in  cases  which  it  represents  the  im- 
portance of  securing  the  very  best  witnesses  is  greater  in  de- 
gree than  in  ordinary  cases. 

§  416.   Competency  should  be  ascertained  before  trial. — 

Whether  a  person  can  be  used  as  an  instrument  of  evidence 
depends  upon  whether  he  is  a  competent  witness  in  the  par- 
ticular case.     If  he  is  not  competent  in  that  case,  then  he  is 

son  V.  Weston,  29  Ind.  561 ;  Helms  v.  '  Smith  v.  Rosenham,  19  Ind.  256. 
Green,  105  N.  Car.  251,  S.C.  18  Am.  St.  MVilmont  r.  Meserole,   8  J.    &   S. 
R.  893,  898 ;  McVickar  v.  Greenleaf,  4  321.     But  see  Clark  r.Vorce,  15  Wend. 
Rob.  (N.  Y.)  657;    Havemeyer  v.  In-  (N.  Y.)  193;  Helms  v.  Green,  105  N. 
gersoll,  12  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  301 ;  Jack-  Car.  251,  S.  C.  18  Am.  St.  R.  893. 
sonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peninsular  Land,  '  French  v.  Venneraan,  14  Ind.  282; 
etc.,  Co.  (Fla.),  9  So.  R.  661.     He  can  Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  616, 
simply  be  required  to  answer  as  to  his  S.  C.  6  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  524,  533 ;  Thorn- 
own  knowledge,  however,  and  not  as  ton  v.  Adkins,  19  Ga.  464;  11  Am.  & 
to  who  his  witnesses  are  and  what  they  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law,  533 ;  Adams'  Eq., 
told  him.  Wabash,  etc.,  R'y  Co.  cMor-  2;  1  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §  202. 
gan,  132  Ind.  430,  31  N.  E.  R.  661,  663. 


516  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  417 

not  an  instrument  of  evidence.  A  person  may  be  unworthy 
of  credit  and  yet  be  competent;  in  that  event  he  is  an  instru- 
ment of  evidence,  although  not  an  effective  one.  It  is  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  ascertain  in  advance  of  the  trial  whether  the 
witness  is,  or  is  not,  competent;  for,  if  he  is  not,  he  can  not 
be  employed  as  a  means  of  communicating  facts  to  the  court, 
and  a  careful  advocate  would  search  elsewhere  for  an  effective 
instrument. 

§  417.  Tendency  of  modern  legislation. — The  tendency  of 
modern  legislation  has  been  for  years  towards  a  practical 
emancipation  of  witnesses  from  the  strict  rules  of  the  common 
law  disqualifying  them  on  account  of  interest,  relationship,  or 
the  like,  so  that  competency  is  now  the  rule  and  incompetency 
the  exception.  In  some  States,  however,  the  legislature  has 
gone  further  than  in  others,  and  counsel  should,  therefore, 
consult  the  statutes  of  his  own  State.  For  this  reason  and  for 
the  further  reason  that  this  subject  is  more  properly  within 
the  domain  of  a  treatise  on  the  law  of  evidence  than  it  is  within 
the  scope  of  a  book  upon  general  practice,  we  shall  not  treat  it 
in  detail,  but  shall  content  ourselves  with  a  statement  of  the 
general  rules,  and  a  brief  consideration  of  the  most  important 
phases  of  the  subject  that  counsel  ought  to  keep  in  mind  in 
securing  evidence  and  preparing  his  case  for  trial  upon  the 
facts. 

§  418.   Competency  to   be  determined  by  court — How. — 

The  competency  of  a  witness  is  for  the  court  to  determine,^  and 
his  credibility  is  for  the  jury.^  Incompetency  of  a  witness 
will  not  be  presumed,  and  where  a  witness  is  objected  to  as  in- 

*  City  of  Ft.  Wayne  v.  Coombs,  107  v.  Moore,  91  Ind.  522;  Moore  v.  State, 

Ind.  75 ;  Duncan  v.  Welty,  20  Ind.  44 ;  68  Ala.  360;  Bowers  v.  People,  74  111. 

Davis  V.  State,  35  Ind.  496;    Commer-  418;  Mechelke  v.  Bramer,  59  Wis.  57; 

cial  Bank  v.  Hughes,  17  Wend.  (N.Y.)  Worthington  v.  Mencer  (Ala.),  11  So. 

94;    Reynolds  V.    Lounsbury,   6  Hill  R.  72;    Springfield  v.  State  (Ala.),  11 

(N.  Y.),   534;    Tucker  v.  Welsh,  17  So.  R.  250;    Nat.  Bank  v.  Mills,  99  N. 

Mass.  160 ;  Cook  v.  Mix,  11  Conn.  432 ;  Y.  656,  S.  C.  2  N.  E.  R.  27 ;    Sharp  v. 

Chouteau  v.  Searcy,  8  Mo.  733.  State,  14  Am.  St.  R.  27,  and  note. 

"  Nelson  v.  Vorce,  55  Ind.  455 ;  Dodd 


§  419  TilS    INSTRUMENTS    OF    KVIDENX'K.  517 

competent,  if  the  facts  on  which  the  objection  is  based  are  dis- 
puted, the  judge  must  determine  his  competency;  and  that  this 
may  be  done  intelligently  the  witness  may  be  examined  on  his 
voir  dire,  and  other  evidence  may  be  heard  by  the  judge  tc 
contradict  him  and  show  his  incompetency.^ 

§  419.  Objections  to  competency. — The  party  objecting  has 
the  right  to  begin  the  preliminary  examination  as  to  compe- 
tency, and  the  other  party  may  cross-examine.  Objection  to 
the  competency  of  a  witness  should,  if  the  grounds  of  the  ob- 
jection are  known,  be  made  before  the  commencement  of  his 
examination  in  chief. ^  Where  the  incompetency  of  a  witness 
is  discovered  after  he  has  been  sworn  and  has  given  part  of  his 
evidence  objection  may  then  be  made  and  such  evidence  should 
be  withdrawn,  and  the  jury  instructed  to  disregard  it.^  If  a 
party  calls  a  witness,  incompetent  as  against  himself,  to  testify 
on  any  point,  or  knowingly  permits  him  to  be  examined  with- 
out objection  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  he  is  presumed  to 
have  waived  all  objection  on  that  ground,  and  the  witness  may 
be  examined  at  large.*  A  waiver  of  objection  to  the  compe- 
tency of  a  witness  operates  upon  all  his  testimony,  and  stands 
throughout  the  entire  trial. ^     A  party  who   once  objects,  and 

'  Best's  Ev.,  §  133;  Rapalje's  Law  of  Stuart  r.  Lake,  33  Me.  87;  Groshom 
Witnesses,  §§171,  174;  Bartlett  v.  v.  Thomas,  20  M(L  234 ;  Inglebright  ». 
Smith,  11  M.  &W.  483;  Nave  v.AVill-  Hammond,  19  Ohio,  337;  Jackson  r. 
iams,  22  Ind.  368 ;  1  Greenl.  Ev.,  §  425.  Jackson,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  173 ;  Patter- 
In  cases  of  doubt,  however,  it  seems  son  v.  AVallace,  44  Pa.  St.  88 ;  Donel- 
that  courts  are  disposed  to  receive  the  son  r.  Taylor,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  390. 
witness  and  let  the  jury  judge  of  his  '  Jacobs  r.  Layborn,  11  M.  t^  W.  (585; 
credibility.  1  Best's  Ev.,  §  1.33,  lb.,  §  Brockbank  v.  Anderson,  7  Man.  &  Or. 
144.  And  on  principle,  and,  perhaps,  295;  Stout  v.  Wood,  1  Blackf.  71; 
upon  authority,  when  a  party  who  ob-  Fisher  v.  Willard,  13  Mass.  379;  1 
jects  to  a  witness  as  incompetent  Greenl.  Ev.,  §  421 ;  Rapalje's  Law  of 
chooses  to  examine  him  upon  his  voir  Witnesses,  §  173. 

dire,  he  can  not,  as  a  matter  of  right,  *Varick  v.  Jackson,  2  Wend.  blO,  S. 
contradict  him  by  other  evidence.  C.  19  Am.  Dec.  571,  and  note,  579;  1 
See  Stebbins  v.  Sackett,  5  Conn.  258,  Greenl.  Ev.,  §421 ;  Donelson  r.  Tay- 
261;  1  Greenl.  Ev.,  §423;  Rapalje's  lor,  8  Pick.  390,  392;  Stockton  r.  De- 
Law  of  Witnesses,  §  175.  muth,  7  Watts,  39,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec. 

=  Lewis    V.    Morse,    20    Conn.    211;  735 ;  Seip  r.  Torch,  52  Pa.  St.  210. 

Kingsbury  y.  Buchanan,  11  Iowa,  387 ;  *Choteau  v.  Thompson,  3  Ohio  St. 


518  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  420 

preserves  his  objection,  does  not  lose  the  benefit  of  it  by  sub- 
sequently introducing  evidence  to  contradict  the  testimony  of 
the  witness,  nor  does  he  lose  the  benefit  by  cross-examining 
the  witness.^  Objections  to  the  competency  of  a  witness  should 
be  specifically  stated.^  To  make  an  objection  to  the  compe- 
tency of  a  witness  available  on  appeal,  the  record  should  show 
the  specific  objections  stated  to  the  trial  court  and  the  reason 
of  his  incompetency,  as  well  as  the  ruling  and  exception.^ 

§  420.  Incompetency — Grounds  of  objection. — We  are  here 
dealing  with  the  question  of  the  competency  of  the  witness  and 
not  with  the  question  of  the  admissibility  of  some  particular 
portion  of  his  evidence,  and  in  such  a  case  the  objection  should, 
of  course,  be  based  upon  some  ground  of  incompetency.  Un- 
der the  modern  statutes,*  insanity  of  the  witness  at  the  time 
his  testimony  is  offered  and  infancy  are  the  chief  grounds  of 
incompetency.  It  is  also  commonly  provided  that  neither 
party  shall  be  competent  to  testify  as  to  a  transaction  with  a 
person  since  deceased  where  the  evidence  would  be  inimical  to 
the  estate.^     In  some  of  the  statutes  the  provision  upon  this 

424;  Beall  v.  Lynn,  6  Harr.  &  Johns.  Holcomb,  95  N.  Y.  316;  Consolidated 

(Md.)  336.  Ice  Co.  v.  Keifer,  134  111.  481,  S.  C.  10 

1  Boylan  v.  Meeker,  4  Dutch.  (N.  J.)  L.  R.  A.  696;  Harris  v.  Bank,  22  Fla. 

274;    Carpenter  v.  Ginder,  1  Wis.  243.  501,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  201;  EmmeU'. 

''Bunker    v.    Gilmore,   40    Me.   88;  Hayes,  102  Mo.  186,  S.  C.  22  Am.  St.  R. 

White  Water  Valley  Co.  v.  Dow,  1  769;  Blood  v.  Fairbanks,  50  Cal.  420; 

Ind.  141;  Pegg  v.  Warford,  7  Md.  582 ;  Taylor  v.  Duesterberg,  109  Ind.  165; 

Brown  v.  State,  24  Ark.  620;    State  v.  Ketcham  v.  Hill,  42  Ind.  64;    Clift  v. 

Levy,  5  La.  Ann.  64.  Shockley,    77     Ind.     297;     Randall's 

="  Emory  v.  Owings,  3  Md.  178 ;  Grant  Adm'r  v.  Randall,  64  Vt.  419,  S.  C.  24 

V.  Levan,  4  Pa.  St.  393 ;    Bates  v.  Bar-  Atl.  R.  1011 ;  Bressler  v.  Baum,  42  111. 

ber,  4  Cash.  107;    Rapalje's  Law  of  App.  190;  Mersmierv.  McCrary  (Mo.), 

Witnesses,  §179.  21  S.W.  R.  17  ;  Ewingt'.  White,8TJtah, 

*See  Rapalje's   Law  of  Witnesses,  250,  S.  C.  30Pac.  R.  984;  Jossw.  Mohn 

Ch.  VIII,  where  the  provisions  of  the  (N.  J.),  26  Atl.  R.  987;  Bowie  v.  Bowie 

various  statutes  upon  this  subject  are  (Md.),  26  Atl.  R.  405;  Hurry  v.  Kline 

quoted  in  full.  (Ky.),20S.W.  R.  277.  Held  competent 

*  In  the  following  recent  cases  evi-  and  admissible  in  the  following  cases, 

dence   was  held   inadmissible  under  as  not  within  the  prohibition  of  the 

the  statute :     Mills  v.  Davis,  113  N.  Y.  statute :    Hess  v.  Lowrey,  122  Ind.  225, 

243,  S.  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  394;  Holcomb  v.  S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  90;  South  Baltimore, 


§  420  THE  INSTRUMENTS  OF  EVIDENCK.  519 

subject  is  much  broader  than  in  others.  Provisions  are  also 
found  in  most  of  them  to  the  effect  that  attorneys,  physicians, 
clergymen  and  husband  or  wife  shall  not  be  competent  to 
testify  as  to  confidential  communications,  without  the  consent 
of  the  party  making  them.^  Where  the  objection  is  upon  the 
ground  of  the  insanity  of  the  witness  his  competency  depends 
upon  the  extent  of  the  insanity.  An  idiot  can  under  no  cir- 
cumstances be  a  competent  witness;  but  a  lunatic  may  be  com- 
petent during  a  lucid  interval,'^  and  it  may  be  stated  generally 
that  a  witness,  otherwise  competent,  is  not  rendered  incompe- 
tent by  insanity  or  unsoundness  of  mind  if  he  has  sufficient 
understanding  to  apprehend  the  obligation  of  an  oath  and  is 
capable  of  giving  a  correct  account  of  what  he  has  seen  or 
heard  in  reference  to  the  question  at  issue. ^  In  the  absence  of 
a  statute  fixing  the  time  at  whicli  an  infant  shall  be  deemed 
competent  or  incompetent  to  testify  as  a  witness,  his  compe- 
tency depends  upon  his  intelligence,  understanding  and  ca- 
pacity or  ability  to  comprehend  the  nature  and  effect  of  an 
oath.*  Few,  if  any,  of  the  statutes  have  attempted  to  fix  the 
age  at  which  the  testimony  of  an  infant  shall  be  excluded  in 
all  cases,  but  many  of  them  provide  that  children  under  ten 

etc.,  Co.  V.  Muhlbach,  69  Md.  395,  S.  Thompson  v.  Ish,  17  Am.  St.  R.  565; 

C.  1  L.  R.  A.  507,  and  authorities  cited  De  Farges  v.  Ryland,  24  Am.  St.  Rep. 

in  note;    Larsen  v.  Johnson,  78  Wis.  659,  and   note.     See,  also,  as  to  hus- 

300,  S.  C.  23  Am.  St.  R.  404;  Estate  of  band  and  wife,  Labaree  v.  Wood,  54 

McCausland,  52  Cal.  568;    :\Iason  v.  Vt.  452;  Bierly'sEstate,  81  Pa.St.419; 

Prendergast,  120  N.Y.  536;  Darwin  r.  Reynolds  v.  Schaffer,  91    Mich.  494; 

Keigher,  45  Minn.  64;  Moore  v.  Trim-  Johnson   r.  Boice,  40  La.  Ann.  273; 

mier,  32  S.Car.  511 ;  Eisenlord  v.  Clura,  Schnabel  v.  Betts,  23  Fla.  178 ;    Shaw 

126  N.  Y.  552;  Wiseman  v.  Wiseman,  v.  Schoonover,  130  111.  448;  Thornton 

73  Ind.  112;  Lamb  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  v.  Gaar,  87  Va.  315;  Aucliampaugh  r. 

456;    Staser  r.  Hogan,  120  Ind.  207;  Schmidt,  77  la.  13;    LouisviUe,  etc., 

Durham    r.  Shannon,    116   Ind.  403;  Co.  c.  Thompson,  107  Ind.  442. 

Walker  r.  Steele.  121  Ind.  436;  Wither-  »  Evans  v.  Hettich,  7  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

spoon  V.  Blewett,  47  Miss.  570 ;  Sheib-  453,  470 ;  Campbell  r.  State,  23  Ala.  44. 

ley  V.  Hill,  57  Ga.  232.  ^District  of  Columbia  v.  Amies,  107 

»  See  19  Am.  &  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law,  U.  S.  519,  S.  C.  2  Sup.  Ct.  R.  840 ;  Cole- 

121;  note  to  Johnson  r.  Boice,  40  La.  man r.  Commonwealth,  25 Gratt.  (Va.) 

Ann.  273,  S.  C.  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  528;  865;  Reg  r.  Hill,  5  Cox  Crim.  Cas.  259. 

note  to  Birmingham,  etc.,  R'y  Co.  r.  *  McGuff  v.  State,  88  .Via.  147,  S.  C. 

Hale,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  752;    note  to  16  Am.  St.  R.  25;    Flauugin  v.  State, 


520  THE  WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  420 

years  of  age  shall  be  incompetent  unless  capable  of  understand- 
ing the  nature  and  obligation  of  an  oath,  while  others  provide 
that  children  shall  be  competent — so  far  as  the  question  of  in- 
fancy is  concerned — unless  they  are  under  ten  years  of  age 
and  appear  incapable  of  receiving  just  impressions  of  the  facts 
respecting  which  they  are  examined,  or  of  relating  them  truly. 
The  difference  in  the  language  of  these  statutes  may  affect  the 
presumption  that  should  be  indulged  as  to  the  competency  of 
the  infant  witness,  but  if  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  his  capacity 
an  examination  as  to  mental  qualifications  and  understanding 
would  doubtless  be  permitted  in  any  case.  At  common  law  a 
party  to  an  action  was  not  permitted  to  testify  ^  and  this  was 
the  general  rule  as  to  all  persons  interested  in  the  event  of  the 
suit  even  though  they  were  not  parties  to  the  record;^  but  the 
interest,  in  order  to  disqualify,  was  required  to  be  a  certain 
and  direct  interest  of  such  a  character  that  the  record  could  be 
used  for  or  against  him  in  another  action  or  that  he  would 
gain  or  lose  by  tlie  judgment  in  the  cause. -^  Mere  interest  in 
the  question  involved  and  not  in  the  event  of  the  suit  did  not 
render  him  incompetent.*  AVhere  the  interest  of  the  witness 
was  exactly  balanced,  that  is,  where  it  was  such  that  he  would 
neither  gain  nor  lose  by  the  operation  or  use  of  the  judgment 
or  record,  he  was  allowed  to  testify ,°  and  so  where  his  interest 

25  Ark.  92 ;  Moore  v.  State,  79  Ga.  498 ;  v.  Wolfe,  4  McLean,  549 ;    Coghill  v. 

Stater.  Severson,  78  la.  653;  Hughes  Boring,  15  Cal.  213.     See,  also,  Bow- 

V.  Detroit,  etc.,  R'y  Co.,  65  Mich.  10;  ers  v.  Schuler  (Minn.),55N.W.  R.817. 
Hoist  V.  State,  23  Tex.  App.  1,  S.  C.  59        *  Rollins  v.  Taber,  25  Me.  144 ;  Baker 

Am.  R.  770;    State  «.  Richie,  28  La.  v.  Corey,  19  Pick.  496;  Mull  v.  Martin, 

Ann.  327 ;  Draper  v.  Draper,  68  111.  17.  85  N.  Car.  406 ;    McMurray's  Appeal, 

'  Bridges  V.  Armour,  5  How.  (U.  S.)  101   Pa.  St.  421;    Evans  v.  Eaton,  7 

91;  Wootent'.  Nail,  18  Ga.  609.  Wheat.  (U.  S.)   356,  423;    Rowley  v. 

''SBlk.Com.  *369;  Beant;.  Pearsall,  Bigelow,  12  Pick.  307,  S.  C.  23  Am. 

:2  Ala.  592 ;  Evans  v.  Hettick,  7  Wheat.  Dec.  607. 

(U.S.)  453;    Gould  w.  James,  6  Cow.        *  Cutter  v.   Copeland,  18  Me.  127; 

(N.   Y.)    .369;    Spears  v.    Burton,   31  Nute -!;.  Bryant,  31  Me.  553;  Garners. 

Ivliss.  547;  Bliss  v.  Thompson,  4  Mass.  Bridges,   38   Ala.    276;    Montague  v. 

488.  Mitchell,  28  111.  481  ;  Elgin  v.  Hill,  27 

'Eaton  V.  Gentle,  1  Chand.  (Wis.)  Cal.  372;    Kingsbury  v.  Buchanan,  11 

10 ;  Coltart  v.  Laughinghouse,  38  Ala.  la.  387 ;  Hidell  v.  Dwinell,  89  Ga.  532, 

190;  Linsee  v.  State,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  79. 
601 ;  Ely  v.  Forward,  7  Mass.  25 ;  Baird 


§  421  THE    INSTRUMENTS    OF    EVIDENCE,  521 

was  against  the  party  calling  liim.'  Other  rules  might  also 
be  given,  but  it  would  be  unpr(jlitable  to  extend  the  discussion 
of  this  subject,  for,  as  already  stated,  interest  no  longer  ren- 
ders a  witness  incompetent,  under  the  modern  statutes,  and 
objections  on  account  of  interest  now  go  to  the  credibility  of 
the  witness  rather  than  to  his  competency. 

§  421 .   Notice  to  witness — Subpoena — A 1 1  a c  h  m  e  n  t . — r)r . 

Wharton  says:  "A  witness  in  a  civil  case  (the  practice  being 
otherwise  in  criminal)  is  entitled  to  have  due  notice  in  order 
to  refresh  his  memory  and  arrange  his  business  so  as  to  enable 
him  to  testify;  and  hence,  if  called  upon  without  notice  upon 
his  happening  to  be  in  the  court,  he  is  ordinarily  entitled  to 
decline  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  served  with  a  subpa'ua.  "^ 
Without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  the  statement  made  by 
the  learned  author  is  strictly  correct,  and  risking  a  departure 
from  a  strict  logical  method,  we  commend  it  as  worthy  of  at- 
tention for  the  suggestion  it  contains,  and  that  is,  that  the 
memory  of  the  witness  should  have  time  to  fully  recall  the 
event  or  occurrence  of  which  he  is  expected  to  give  testimony. 
As  the  witness  is  the  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  advocate, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  better  he  is  fitted  for  the  purpose  for 
which  he  is  to  be  used  the  more  effective  will  be  the  work  he 
will  enable  the  advocate  to  accomplish.  If  the  advocate  does 
not  give  timely  notice  as  the  law  requires,  he  will  be  in  fault, 
and  can  censure  only  himself  if  his  fault  mars  his  work  in 
court.  He  should  see  that  a  subpoena  is  duly  issued,^  and  it 
may  be  necessary  in  some  cases  also  to  prepay  or  tender  fees 
and  traveling  expenses  of  the  witness,  but  this  is  usually 
regulated  by  statute  or   rule  of  court.     If   the  witness,   after 

'Nooe  V.  Higdon,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  Barber  v.  Wood,    2  Moo.  cS:  R.    172; 

184;    Le  Clair  v.  Peterson,  4  Blackf.  Woodward  v.    Purdy,    20    Ala.   379; 

273;  Turner  v.  Davis,  1  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  SUiiner  v.  Pitchman,  124  111.  250,  S.  C. 

151;     Pool   V.    Myers,   21    ^Sliss.   4()(>;  15X.  E.  R.  757;  Edm-ational  Ass'n  r. 

Darling  v.  March,  22  Me.  184 ;  Stokes  Hitchcock,  4  Kan.  .30 ;  People  r.  Lamp- 

V.  Kane,  5  111.  167.  son,  70  Cal.  204,  S.  C.  11  Pac.  R.  593; 

'Wharton's  Ev.(  3d  ed.),  §  377.  Chalmers  r.  Melville,  1  E.  D.  Smith 

niammond    v.   Stuart,   1  Str.   510;  (N.  Y.),  502. 


522  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  422 

being  duly  subpoenaed,  fails  to  attend,  the  court,  upon  the  ap- 
plication of  the  party  by  whom  he  was  subpoenaed,  will  issue 
an  attachment,  under  which  he  may  be  brought  into  court  and 
compelled  to  testify  in  a  proper  case.^  An  attachment  is  gen- 
erally issued  under  such  circumstances  as  of  course  and  as  a 
matter  of  right, ^  but  some  courts  have  held  that  the  granting 
or  refusal  of  an  attachment  is  a  matter  of  discretion  and  will 
not  be  reviewed  upon  appeal.^ 

§  422.  Real  evidence. — The  instruments  of  evidence  are 
sometimes  real  things,  as  models,  machines,  apparel,  weapons 
and  the  like.^  These  are  the  instruments  of  "real  evidence," 
and  they  are  very  serviceable  if  the  advocate  so  thoroughly  un- 
derstands their  nature  and  use  as  to  be  able  to  clearly  and 
strongly  instruct  and  inform  the  jury.  But  for  the  fact  that 
we  have  more  than  once  seen  these  instruments  of  evidence 
turned  with  telling  force  against  the  advocate  who  brought 
them  into  court,  we  should  deem  it  needless  to  caution  one 
who  employs  such  instruments  to  be  sure  that  he  thoroughly  " 
understands  their  construction  and  their  use.  "Real  evidence" 
is,  it  is  obvious,  of  the  highest  probative  force  when  skillfully 
used,  but  in  the  hands  of  a  blunderer  it  is  oftentimes  a  very 
dangerous  species  of  evidence.  Many  of  the  ablest  advocates 
have  given  days  of  study  to  instruments  of  real  evidence,  and 

1  Wilson -y.  State,  57  Ind.  71;  Burn-  present  was  a  barrister,  of  enormous 

ham  V.  Morrissey,  14  Gray  (Mass.),  bulk  and  much  given  to  drink,  named 

226;  Stepherdr.  People,  19  N.Y.  537;  Saunders.     "The  judges  tasted,   the 

Mitchell  V.  Maxwell,  2  Fla.  594;  Rap-  jury  tasted,  and  Saunders,  seeing  the 

alje's  Law  of  AVitnesses,  §  302.  vials  moving,  took  one  and  set  it  to 

'  Green  v.  State,  17  Fla.  669.  his  mouth  and  drank  it  all  off.     The 

'West  •«.  State,  1  Wis.  209;  States,  court,  observing  a  pause  and  some  mer- 

Archer,  48  Iowa,  310;  State  v.  Benja-  riment  at  the  bar  about  Mr.  Saunders, 

min,  7  La  Ann.  47 ;  People  v.  Comm'rs,  called  to  Jeffries  (one  of  the  counsel 

7  Col.  190.  in  the  case)  to  go  on  with  his  evidence. 

♦  In  a  late  edition  of  the  autobiogra-  'My  Lord,'  said  he,  'we  are  at  a  full 

phy  of  Roger  North,  a  case  is  referred  stop  and  can  go  no  further.'     'What's 

to  in  which  there  appeared  in  court  as  the  matter?   said  the  chief.    Jeffries 

part  of  the  "real   evidence"  several  replied:     'Mr.  Saunders  has  drank  up 

specimens  of  brandy,  and  among  those  all  our  evidence.'"     In  Hale's  Pleas 


§  422  THE    INSTRUMENTS    OF    EVIDENCE.  523 

no  prudent  man  will  make  use  of  this  kind  of  evidence  unless 
he  knows  that  he  can  secure  good  from  it  without  the  risk  of 
harm. 

of  the  Crown,  §  G35,  will  be  found  a  bative  value  and  force  of  real  evl- 
case  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  pro-    dence, 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


§  423.  Province  of  court  and  jury. 

424.  Mixed  questions  of  law  and  fact. 

425.  Conclusions  of  law. 

426.  Agency. 

427.  Alteration  of  written  instru- 

ments. 

428.  Boundary  and  location. 

429.  Cause  and  effect. 

430.  Confidential    and    other    rela- 

tions. 

431.  Construction  of  written  instru- 

ments. 

432.  Construction  of  unwritten  con- 

tracts and  language. 


§  433.  Fraud  and  good  faith. 

434.  Identity. 

435.  Intent— Malice. 

436.  Laws  and  ordinances. 

437.  Negligence. 

438.  Notice  and  knowledge. 

439.  Payment. 

440.  Possession  and  ownership. 

441.  Probable  cause. 

442.  Reasonable  time. 

443.  Waiver  and  abandonment. 

444.  Miscellaneous  questions. 


§  423.  Province  of  court  and  Jury. — Questions  of  law  are 
for  the  judge  and  questions  of  fact  are  generally  for  the  jury  to 
determine  in  actions  at  law/  although  there  are  certain  pre- 
liminary questions  of  fact  which  it  is  the  province  and  duty  of 
the  court  to  decide,  such  as  those  relating  to  the  competency  of 
witnesses  and  the  admissibility  of  evidence. ^  The  province  of 
the  court  is  separate  and  distinct  from  that  of  the  jury,  and  if 
the  court  wrongfully  invades  the  province  of  the  jury  the  error 
is  usually  fatal. ^     For  this  reason  it  is  important  to  know  what 


»Co.  Litt.,  155,  156;  Thomp.  Tr., 
§  1017.  The  entire  subject  of  the  pro- 
vince of  court  and  jury  is  elaborately 
treated  by  Judge  Thompson. 

«  Bartlett  v.  Smith,  11  M.  &  W.  483 ; 
Doe  V.  Davies,  L.   R.   10  Q.  B.  315; 


Jewell  V.  Parr,  L.  R.  13  C.  B.  909; 
Robinson  v.  Ferry,  11  Conn.  460; 
Scott  ».  Coxe,  20  Ala.  294;  Gorton  v. 
Hadsell,  9  Cush.  (Mass.)  508;  Carrico 
V.  McGee,  1  Dana  (Ky.),  6;  Carter  v. 
Bennett,  6  Fla.  214;    Flynt  v.  Boden- 


Brown  v.  State,  71  Ind.  470;  City  of    hamer,80N.Car.205;  States. Michael, 


Ft.  Wayne  v.  Coombs,  107  Ind.  75; 
Chouteau  v.  Searcy,  8  Mo.  733;  Mc- 
Ewen  V.  Bigelow,  40  Mich.  215;  Dole 
V.  Johnson,  50  N.  H.452;  Chandler t?. 
Von  Roeder,  24  How.    (U.    S.)    224; 


37  W.  Va.  565,  S.  C.  16  S.  E.  R.  803; 
De  France  u.  De  France,  34  Pa.  St.  385 ; 
State  V.  Banister,  35  So.  Car.  290,  S. 
C.  14  S.  E.  R.  678. 
=*  Barker  v.  State,  48  Ind.  163 ;  Wes- 


(524) 


§  424  QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT.  525 

a,re  questions  of  law  and  what  are  questions  of  fact.  In  order 
that  the  case  may  be  properly  presented  counsel  should  know 
in  advance  of  the  trial  what  questions  are  involved,  and  should 
be  prepared  to  present  them  to  the  proper  tribunal.  He  should 
be  ready  to  prove  his  facts  and  to  sustain  his  propo.sitions  of 
law  by  reason  and  authority.  The  choice  of  the  mode  of  trial 
also  frequently  depends  upon  the  advocate's  decision  as  to 
whether  his  client's  case  should  be  presented  upon  issues  of 
fact  or  upon  issues  of  law,  and  the  pleadings  should  be  pre- 
pared accordingly.  As  a  general  rule  if  the  plaintiff's  (Mjunsel 
elects  to  put  the  case  to  the  court  upon  the  law  he  should  plead 
all  the  facts,  but  if  he  hopes  to  go  to  the  jury  and  trusts  largely 
to  inferences  he  should  plead  only  such  facts  as  are  indispen- 
sable to  his  cause  of  action. 

§  424.  Mixed  questions  of  law  and  fact. — There  are  many 
cases  in  which  the  jury  must  determine  the  facts  and  the  court 
must  instruct  them  as  to  the  law  upon  such  facts, ^  or,  where  a 
special  verdict  is  returned,  pronounce  the  law  upon  the  facts 
found  by  the  jury.^  In  cases  of  this  kind,  where  the  facts  are 
disputed  or  more  than  one  reasonable  inference  can  be  drawn, 
the  question  is  often  called  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact.^ 
But  this  expression  has  been  criticised,  and  it  is,  perhaps,  of 
little  value,  for,  in  one  sense  at  least,  the  ultimate  question  in 

sels  V.  Beeman,  87  Mich.  481,  S.  C.  49  'Toledo  &  Wabash  R'y  Co.  v.  God- 

N.  W.  R.  483;  Thomas  v.  Thomas,  15  dard,  25  Ind.  185;  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St. 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  178;  Hickey  r.  Ryan,  L.  R'y  Co.  v.  Spem-er,  98  Ind.  18(3; 
15  Mo.  02;  Chappell  v.  Allen,  38  Mo.  Bannen  i'.  Kokomo,  etc.,  Co.,  115  Ind. 
213;  Scott  V.  People,  141  111.  195,  S.  C.  115;  Conner  v.  Citizens'  St.  R'y  Co., 
30  N.  E.  R.  329;  Curry  r.  Curry,  114  105  Ind.  62. 

Pa.  St.  367 ;  State  v.  Huffman,  10  Ore.  '  See  Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Heuschen, 

15,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  640;  New  Jersey  52  Mo.  207,  209;  Burke  v.  Adams,  80 

Steamboat  Co.  v.  New  York,  109  N.  Y.  Mo.  504,  S.  C.  50  Am.  R.  510;  Ilurl- 

621 ;  Sibley  v.  Ratliffe,  50  Ark.  477,  S.  hurt  i'.  Wheeler,  40  N.  H.  73;  Catling 

C.  8  S.  W\"r.  086.  V.  Newell,  9  Ind.  572,  577;    Roth  c. 
'  Marshall  r.  Schrickor,  03  Mo.  308;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  .548, 

Pittsburgh.  C.  c<c  St.  L.  R'y  Co.  v.  Spen-  S.  C.  90  Am.  Dec.  7.30 ;  Chicago  &  East- 

cer,  98  Ind.   186;     Rogers  r.   Loyden,  crn   HI.    R.    R.   Co.    r.  Ostrander,  116 

127  Ind.  50;  City  of  Franklin  v.  liar-  Ind.  2.59,  264;  Toledo  &  AVabash  R'y 

ter,  127  Ind.  446.  Co.  v.  Goddard,  25  Ind.  185,  192. 


526 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§425 


almost  every  case  is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact.  The 
jury  no  more  decide  the  law  in  such  a  case  than  in  any  other. 
They  may  decide  the  ultimate  question  in  issue,  although  it 
involves  a  matter  of  law,  but  in  so  doing  they  do  not  decide 
the  law,  for  they  are  bound,  at  least  in  civil  cases,  to  take  the 
law  as  it  is  given  to  them  by  the  court. ^ 


§  425.  Conclusions  of  law. — It  is  a  well  established  rule 
that  pleadings  should  state  facts  and  not  mere  conclusions  of 
law;^  and  it  is  also  the  rule  that  special  verdicts  should  find 
the  ultimate  facts. ^  Mere  conclusions  of  law  will  add  nothing 
to  the  force  of  a  special  verdict,  and  will  be  disregarded  by  the 
court  in  determining  the  sufficiency  of  the  verdict.*     For  these 


'  St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock  Yards  v.  Wig- 
gins Ferry  Co.,  102  111.  514;  Smith  v. 
Carrington,  4  Cranch  (U.  S.) ,  62 ;  Tay- 
lor V.  Hillyer,  3  Blackf.  (Ind.)  433; 
Indianapolis  &  St.  L.  R'y  Co.  v.  Wat- 
son, 114  Ind.  20 ;  Chapman  v.  McCor- 
mick,  86  N.  Y.  479;  State  v.  Wilner, 
40  Wis.  304;  Sailer  v.  Barnousky,  60 
Wis.  169;  Coffin  v.  Coffin,  4  Mass.  1; 
Washington  v.  State,  63  Ala.  135,  S. 
C.  35  Am.  R.  8;  1  Greenl.  Ev.,  §  49. 
Given  the  law,  which  constitutes  the 
major  premise,  and  the  facts  found  by 
the  jury,  which  constitute  the  minor 
premise,  the  conclusion  necessarily 
follows  according  to  the  rules  of  logic, 
so  that  the  jury,  in  applying  to  the 
facts  the  law  as  it  is  given  to  them 
by  the  court  and  drawing  the  conclu- 
sion do  not  determine  the  law  any 
more  than  the  court  determines  the 
facts  by  applying  the  law  and  render- 
ing judgment  upon  the  facts  found  by 
the  jury  in  a  special  verdict. 

''Green  v.  Palmer,  15  Cal.  411,  S.  C. 
76  Am.  Dec.  492,  and  note;  Spahr  v, 
Tartt,  23  111.  App.  420;  Smith  v.  Mc- 
Lean, 22  111.  App.  451 ;  Crane  v.  Lar- 
sen,  15  Ore.  .345,  S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  .326; 
Jackson  v.  Farlow,  75  Ind.  118 ;    Peo- 


ple V.  Commissioners,  54  N.  Y.  276, 
279;  Alabama  v.  Burr,  115  U.  S.  413, 
S.  C.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  81,  87;  Gould  on 
Pleading,  53,  406;  Bliss  Code  PI.,  § 
210;  Pom.  Rem.  &  Remed.  Rts.,  §  530; 
Maxwell  on  Code  PI.,  106. 

^  Locke  V.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  66 
Ind.  353 ;  Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  McCain, 
133  Ind.  231,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  956 ;  Con- 
Ian  V.  Grace,  36  Minn.  276 ;  Grand  Rap- 
ids &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Ellison,  117  Ind. 
234,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  135 ;  Hankey  v. 
Downey,  3  Ind.  App.  325,  S.  C.  29  N. 
E.  R.  606;  Brown  v.  Aurora,  109  111. 
165 ;  Rogers  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
117  111.  115;  note  to  Hayes  v.  Mass. 
Mutual  Life.  Ins.  Co.,  1  L.  R.  A.  303; 
Raimond  v.  Terrebonne  Parish,  132  U. 
S.  192,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  57.  See, 
also,  Hill  V.  Covell,l  N.  Y.  522 ;  Lang- 
ley  V.  Warner,  3  N.  Y.  327 ;  Graham 
V.  Bayne,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  60;  Tyler 
V.  Waddingham,  58  Conn.  375,  S.  C.  8 
L.  R.  A.  657;  Smith  v.  Mohn,  87  Cal. 
489,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R.  696. 

*  Dixon  V.  Duke,  85  Ind.  434;  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R'y  Co.  v.  Adams,  105 
Ind.  151 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Burger,  124  Ind.  275,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R. 
981 ;    Reeves  v.  Grottendick,  131  Ind. 


§425 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


527 


reasons  it  is  important  to  know  what  are  mere  conclusions  of 
law.  Upon  this  subject  there  is  much  apparent  conflict  among 
the  authorities,  and  no  definite  rule  can  be  laid  down.'  It 
would  seem,  however,  that  in  the  main  the  same  test  should 
be  applied  as  in  determining  what  questions  are  peculiarly 
within  the  province  of  the  court  as  questions  of  law,  and  that 
an  allegation  or  finding  of  a  conclusion  in  regard  to  such  a 
question  should  be  treated  as  a  mere  conclusion  of  law.  But, 
as  already  stated,  there  seems  to  be  no  test  or  rule  that  will 
hold  good  in  all  cases.  The  following  have  been  held  to  be 
mere  conclusions  of  law  in  pleadings:  That  it  was  the  "duty" 
of  a  party  to  do  a  certain  act;^  that  under  a  certain  statute  an 
estate  passed  to  the  heirs  at  law^^  that  parties  were  legally 
constituted  as  a  board  of  commissioners;^  that  a  party  was 
guilty  of  a  "gross  breach  of  trust" ;^  that  a  certain  act  was 
"duly"  performed;^  that  a  guardian  "ratified"  a  conveyance 
107,S.C.  SON. E.R. 889;  Indianapolis,     White  (Ky.),  11  S.  W.  R.  10;    Quin- 


P.  &  C.  R'y  Co.  V.  Bush,  101  Ind.  582. 
See,  also,  Atwoodf.  Welton,  57  Conn. 
614,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  322 ;  Ward  v.  Clay, 
82  Cal.  502,  511,  S.  C.  23  Pac.  R.  50. 

'  In  Hatch  v.  Peet,  23  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
575,  583,  it  is  said  that  a  conclusion  ot 


ney  v.  Stockbridge,  33  Wis.  505 ;  Liles 
V.  Ratchford,  88  Ala.  397,  S.  C.  6  So.  R. 
914.  Compare  McCarty  v.  Tarr,  83 
Ind.  444. 

♦Woodruff  V.  N.  Y.,etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  59 
Conn.  63,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  17.    See,  also. 


law  is  "an  allegation  which  gives  no  Spaulding  r.  Wesson,  84  Cal.  141.  So, 
facts,  but  matters  of  law  only."  This  generally,  where  the  terms  "lawful" 
definition,  however,  is  of  little  assist-    or  "unlawful,"  or  the  like,  are  used 

without  stating  the  facts.  Tompkins  v. 

Augusta,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.,  33  So.  Car.  216, 

lis.  E.  R.  692;    Sac  Co.  t\  Hobbs,  72 

la.  G9,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  R.  368;  Hain  r. 

North  AVest  Gravel  Road  Co.,  41  Ind. 

196;  Webb  v.  Bidwell,  15  Minn.  479; 

Bowers  r.  Smith,  111  Mo.  45, 20S.W.  R. 

101 ;  People  v.  Supervisors,  27  Cal.  6-55 ; 

People  V.  Commissioners,  11  How.Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  89;  People  v.  Lothrop,  3  Col. 

428.    But  compare  People  r.  Clayton, 

4  Utah,   421,   S.  C.  11   Pac.  R."206; 

Plympton  v.  Sapp,  55  la.  195. 

*  Whitney  v.  New  Haven,  58  Conn. 
450,  S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  666. 

*  Am.  Mut.  Aid  Soc.  r.  Helbum,  85 
Kv.  1,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  571.     But  see 


ance,  for  it  does  not  define  "matters 
of  law"  or  "fact,"  and  these  terms  are 
as  difficult  to  define  as  the  term  "con- 
cUision  of  law"  itself. 

*  Atwood  V.  Welton,  57  Conn.  514,  S. 
C.  18  Atl.  R.  322;  McCune  v.  Norwich 
Gas  Co.,  30  Conn.  521,  S.  C.  79  Am. 
Dec.  278;  Breeze  v.  Trenton  Horse 
Co.,  52  N.  J.  L.  250,  S.  C.  19  Atl.  R. 
204 ;  Newark  v.  Stout,  52  N.  J.  L.  35, 
S.  C.  18  Atl.  R.  943;  Clark  Co.  v. 
Brod,  3  Ind.  App.  585,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 
430;  Baltimore,  etc..  Railroad  v.  Wil- 
son, 31  Ohio  St.  555;  City  of  Buffalo 
r.  Holloway,  7  N.  Y.  403. 

'Temple  v.  Brittan  (Ky.).  12  S.  W. 
R.   306.       See,   also,    Montgomery    r. 


528 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§425 


by  his  ward;^  that  the  law  has  or  has  not  been  complied  with;^ 
that  the  petitioner  "was  detained  and  imprisoned  in  violation 
of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
district  court  had  no  jurisdiction  or  authority  to  try  and  sen- 
tence him;"^  that  the  plaintiff  is  "entitled"  to  recover,*  and 
the  like/''  Epithets  can  not  be  made  to  take  the  place  of  direct 
averments  of  facts,  and  the  use  of  such  words  as  "wrongfully," 
"unlawfully,"  or  "fraudulently,"  will,  as  a  rule  at  least,  add 
nothing  to  the  force  and  effect  of  a  pleading,*^  although  it  is 
customary  to  use  them  in  connection  with  distinct  allegations 
of  fact  upon  which  issue  can  be  joined.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  following  have  been  held  to  be  allegations  of  facts:  That 
a  notice  was  not  posted  in  three  of  the  most  public  places  in 
the  town;''  that  an  additional  assessment  was  made  without 
notice;^  that  the  demand  upon  which  an  attachment  was  based 

High  V.  Bank,  95  Cal.  386,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  526 ;    Leland  v.  Goodfellow,  84  Mich . 

E.  556 ;  Jewett  v.  Perrette,  127  Ind.  97,  357,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R.  591. 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  685.  ^Qlodfelter  v.  Hulett,  72  Ind.  137, 

'  Funk  V.  Rentchler  (Ind.),  33  N.E.  144;    Bodkin  v.  Merit,  102  Ind.  293 

R.  364.  Lafayette  Co.  v.  Neely,  21  Fed.  R.  738 

«  Ducie  V.  Ford,  8  Mont.  233,  S.  C.  19  Scofield  v.  Whitelegge,  49  N.  Y.  259 

Pac.  R.  414;    Gull  River  Lumber  Co.  Connor  v.  Saunders,  81  Tex.  633,  S.  C. 

V.  Keefe,  6  Dak.  160,  41  N.  W.  R.  743 ;  17  S.  W.  R.  236 ;  Thompson  v.  State,  3 

Trow  City  Directory  Co.  v.  Curtin,  36  Ind.  App.  371,  S.  C.  28  N.  E.  R.  996, 998 


Fed.  R.  829. 

3  Ex  parte  Cuddy,  131  U.  S.  280,  S.  C. 
9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  703. 

*  Drake  v.  Cockroft,  10  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  377 ;  Sheridan  v.  Jackson,  72 
N.  Y.  170;  Laffey  v.  Chapman,  9  Col. 
304. 


Hedges  17.  Dam,  72  Cal.  520,  S.C.  14  Pac 
R.  133;  Clark  v.  Dayton,  6  Neb.  192 
Humphreys  v.  Mattoon,  43  la.  556 
Kraus  v.  Thompson,  30  Minn.  64 
Pearce  v.  Watkins,  68  Md.  534.  But, 
in  some  jurisdictions  at  least,  it  is 
sufficient  in  ejectment  and  a  few  other 


*  Daggitt V. Mensch,  141  111.  395, 31 N.  cases  to  aver  the  "wrongful  and  un- 

E.  R.  153;    Central  Baptist  Church  v.  lawful"  detention'  or  withholding  of 

Manchester,  17  R.  I.  492,  23  Atl.  R.  30 ;  possession. 

Reed  v.  Bott,  100  Mo.  62,  S.  C.  12  S.  '  McVichier.  Knight,82Wis.l37,S.C 
W.  R.  347;  Deans  v.  Wilcoxon,  25  .51  N.W.R. 1094.  See, also,  Davis  v. Lake 
Fla.  980,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  163 ;  Lockwood  Shore,  etc.,  R'y  Co.,  1 14  Ind.  364,  369. 
V.  Reese,  76  Wis.  404,  45  N.  W.  R.  313 ;  «  Board  r.  Gruver,  115  Ind.  224,  S. 
Farmers'  High  Line  Canal  v.  South-  C.  17  N.  E.  R.  290.  Compare  Stokes 
worth,  13  Col.  Ill,  21  Pac.  R.  1028,  S.C.  v.  Geddes,  46  Cal.  17.  An  allegation 
4  L.  R.  A.  767 ;  Talbott  v.  Padgett,  30  S.  that  there  was  "no  proper  or  legal  no- 
Car.  167,  S.C.  8  S.E.  R.  845;  McKinney  tice,"  is  a  mere  conclusion  of  law. 
V.  Snider,  116  Ind.  160,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  Harris  v.  Ross,  112  Ind.  314. 


§425 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


529 


was  "simulated;"^  that  a  bond  was  "wrongfully  extorted,"'* 
and  that  a  person  was  of  unsound  mind.'^  Ownership  ^  and 
negligence'^  are  also  considered  ultimate  facts  and  may  usually 
be  averred  in  general  terms.  Indebtedness  has  been  held  to 
be  a  conclusion  of  law/'  but  there  are  many  cases  in  Indiana 
in  which  an  averment  of  indebtedness,  or  that  money  is  due 
and  unpaid,  has  been  held  sufficient,''  In  special  verdicts  and 
findings  the  following  have  been  held  to  be  mere  conclusions 
of  law:  That  an  alleged  street  was  dedicated  to  the  public, 
where  the  question  depended  upon  the  construction  of  a  writ- 
ing;*^ that  the  defendant  "took  and  converted  the  property  in 
controversy  to  its  own  use;"^  that  the  plaintiff  "had  a  right 
to  replevy  the  mill;"i°  and  that  the  defendant  is  indebted  to 


'  Cartwright  v.  Bamberger,  90  Ala. 
405,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  264. 

'  Zimmerman  v.  Kinkle,  IDS  N.  Y. 
282,  288,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  407.  This, 
however,  would  seem  to  be  question- 
able. 

'  Riggs  V.  Am.Tract  Soc,  84  N. Y.  330. 

*  Bliss  Code  PI.,  §  210 ;  Sedgwick  & 
Wait  Tr.  Tit.  to  Land,  §  435 ;  Stanley 
r.Holliday,130Ind.464,30N.E.R.634; 
Maus  V.  Bome,  123  Ind.  522,  S.  C.  24 
N.  E.  R.  345 ;  Arneson  v.  Spawn  (S. 
Dak.),  49  N.  W.  R.  1066;  Pierce  v. 
Langdon,  2  Idaho,  878,  28  Pac.  R.  401 ; 
Commissioners  v.  Young,  18  Kan.  440; 
Wool  ley  V.  Newcombe,  58  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  480.  But  compare  Holbrook 
V.  Sims,  39  Minn.  122,  S.  C.  39  N.  W. 
R.  74;  Turner  v.  White,  73  Cal.  299, 
S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  794;  McCloskey  v. 
Barr,  38  Fed.  R.  165. 

'Rolseth  V.  Smith,  38  .Minn.  14,  S. 
C.  35  N.  W.  R.  565;  Grinde  v.  Mil- 
waukee &  St.  Paul  R.  R.  Co.,  42  la. 
376 ;  Gulf,  C.  &  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.  v.Wash- 
ington,  49  Fed.  R.  347 ;  Cleveland,  C, 
C.  &  St.  L.  R'y  Co.  V.  Wynant,  100 
Ind.  160;  Indianapolis,  P.  &  C.  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Keely,  23  Ind.  133;  Louisville, 
34 


N.  A.  &  C.  R'y  Co.  v.  Cauley,  119  Ind. 
142;  Garner  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  34  Mo.  235 ;  Oldfield  v.  N.Y.,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  14  N.  Y.  310;  Bliss  Code 
PI.,  §211. 

^  Doyle  V.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  44  Cal. 
264;  Brown  v.  Buckingham,  11  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  387;  Haggard  v.  Hays' 
Admr.,13  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  175;  Frazier 
V.  Williams,  15  Minn.  288;  Roberts  v. 
Treadwell,  50  Cal.  520;  Rolling  Stock 
Co.  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Ohio  St. 
450,  467 ;  Power  v.  Gum,  6  Mont.  5 ; 
Morton  v.  Coffin,  29  la.  235 ;  Maxwell 
Code  PI.,  17. 

'Mayes  v.  Goldsmith,  58  Ind.  94; 
Jaqua  v.  Cordesman,  etc.,  Co.,  106 
Ind.  141;  Douthit  r.  Mohr,  116  Ind. 
482.  Probably  because  originally  con- 
tained in  a  short  form  authorized  by 
the  legislature.  See  Johnson  i-.  Kil- 
gore,  39  Ind.  147. 

*  City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Kingsbury, 
101  Ind.  200,  222. 

»  Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  R'y  Co.  v. 
Balch,  105  Ind.  93,  100.  See,  also, 
Burt  V.  Decker,  64  la.  106. 

■0  Keller  v.  Boatman,  49  Ind.  104. 


530 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§425 


the  plaintiff.^  Contrary  to  the  rule  in  regard  to  pleading  neg- 
ligence, it  has  also  been  held  that  a  finding  in  general  terms 
that  a  party  was  guilty  of  negligence  or  that  an  injury  was 
caused  by  the  carelessness  and  negligence  of  the  defendant  is 
a  mere  conclusion  and  is  insufficient  in  the  absence  of  facts 
from  which  the  court  can  deduce  negligence  as  matter  of  law.^ 
So,  a  general  finding  of  ownership  of  personal  property  has 
been  held  to  be  a  mere  conclusion  which  could  not  prevail  over 
findings  of  specific  facts.^  But  whether  a  partnership  existed 
between  two  defendants  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illi- 
nois in  a  recent  case,  to  be  a  question  of  fact,  and  the  court  re- 


'  Kennedy  v.  Derrickson,  5  Wash. 
289,  S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  766. 

*  Indianapolis,  P.  &  C.  R'y  Co.  v. 
Bush,  101  Ind.  582;  Chicago,  St.  L.  & 
P.  R'y  Co.  V.  Burger,  124  Ind.  275, 
279,  and  cases  there  cited ;  Pittsburgh, 
^etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  t;.  Evans,  53  Pa.  St.  250; 
Toledo,  etc.,  R'y  Co.  v.  Goddard,  25 
Ind.  185;  Evansville  &  T.  H.  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Taft,  2  Ind.  App.  Ct.  R.  237, 
243 ;  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  Spencer,  98  Ind.  186.  In  the  last 
case  just  cited  it  is  said:  "The  jury 
have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  law 
in  cases  where  they  return  a  special 
verdict,  but  they  must  state  the  facts 
so  fully  that  the  court  can,  in  a  case 
like  this,  declare  that  the  law  is,  that 
such  facts  constitute  actionable  negli- 
gence. It  is  not  sufficient  to  state 
facts  not  in  themselves  constituting 
negligence,  and  then  by  an  epithet  or 
conclusion  of  law  characterize  them 
as  negligent,  but  the  facts  must  be  so 
stated  as  to  afford  the  court  grounds 
for  adjudging  that  the  law  is  that  they 
do  constitute  negligence.  *  *  *  * 
Conclusions  of  law  in  a  special  verdict 
are  without  force,  and  a  general  state- 
ment that  an  act  was  negligently  done 
is  but  a  conclusion  of  law.  The  facts 
showing  how  the  act  was  done  are  es- 
sential, for  without  them  the  court 


can  not  ascertain  or  pronounce  the 
law.  All  the  authorities  agree  that 
the  law  is  exclusively  for  the  court  in 
cases  where  special  verdicts  are  re- 
turned, but  if  it  be  held  that  a  general 
statement  of  negligence  is  good,  then 
nothing  at  all  is  left  to  the  court,  for 
the  jury  have  determined  both  the 
law  and  the  facts.  To  allow  this  would 
be  to  permit  the  jury  to  usurp  the  func- 
tions of  the  court  and  decide  the  whole 
case.  *  *  *  Where  a  general  ver- 
dict is  sought,  the  court  instructs  the 
jury  as  to  the  law  of  negligence,  and 
thus  pronounces  the  law  of  the  case ; 
but  in  cases  where  a  special  verdict  is 
asked,  the  law  is  pronounced,  not  in 
instructions  to  the  jury,  but  upon  the 
facts  stated  by  the  jury.  If  the  jury 
for  themselves  state  the  law,  then  the 
court  is  a  mere  passive  spectator,  at 
most  a  mere  moderator.  In  general 
verdicts  the  law  enters  as  a  factor,  be- 
cause the  jury  are  required  to  decide 
the  case  according  to  the  law  and  the 
evidence ;  but  in  special  verdicts  they 
simply  state  the  facts.  It  is  clear 
that  unless  all  the  material  facts  are 
stated  in  the  special  verdict,  the  court 
can  not  declare  the  law,  and  the  result 
is  that  the  law  is  not  declared  at  all, 
or  is  declared  by  the  jury." 
=*  Dixon  V.  Duke,  85  Ind.  434,  441. 


§42G 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


531 


fused  to  review  a  finding  to  that  effect  on  the  ground  that,  un- 
der the  statute  of  that  State,  they  were  not  at  liberty  to  review 
the  facts.^ 


§  426.  Agency. — The  existence  and  extent  of  an  alleged 
agency  are  questions  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  determine  from  the 
evidence^  where  the  facts  are  disputed,  although  it  is  certainly 
proper  for  the  court  to  determine  and  instruct  the  jury  what  is 
necessary  in  law  to  constitute  an  agent.  Whether  the  agency 
is  proved  or  not  is  a  question  for  the  jury  where  the  facts  are 
in  dispute,^  but  where  there  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  facts,  the 
court  may  determine  whether  or  not  an  agency  exists.*  The 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  an  act  is  within  the  authority  of 
the  person  performing  it  for  another  is  for  the  jury  to  determine 
from  the  evidence,''  where  the  facts  are  in  dispute;  but  where 
the  facts  are  undisputed^  or  the  authority  is  conferred  by  a 
writing'  the  scope  of  such  authority  is  generally  a  question  of 


'  Field  V.  Crawford,  34  N.  E.  R.  481 

»  Buist  V.  Guice  (Ala.) ,  11  So.  R.  280 
Patten  v.   Pancoast,  109  N.   Y.   G25 
Schoelkop  v.   Leonard,   8  Colo.   159 
Robinson  v.Walton,58  Mo.380 ;  O'Con- 
nor V.  Le  Roux,  78  Mich.  48,  S.  C.  43 
N.  W.  R.  1084;  Brown  i'.  Thomson,  31 
So.  Car.  436,  S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  95 ;  Ger- 
mania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Klewer,  129  111. 
599,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  489 ;  Black  River 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Warner,  93  Mo.  374,  S. 
C.  6  S.  W.  R.  210. 

'  Mechanics  Bank  v.  Nat.  Bank,  36 
Md.  5;  Whitman  v.  Boiling,  47  Ga. 
125 ;  Nichols  v.  Hail,  4  Neb.  210 ;  Lamb 
V.  Irwin,  69  Pa.  St.  436;  Bradstreet 
Co.  V.  Gill,  72  Tex.  115,  9  S.  W.  R.  753, 
S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  405. 

*  South  Bend  Toy  Co.  v.  Dakota,  etc., 
Co.  (S.  Dak.),  52  N.  W.  R.  866. 

*Loucheini  v.  Davies,  148  Pa.  499, 
S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  72 ;  Luckie  v.  Johnson, 
89  Ga.  321,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  459; 
Moore  v.  Murrell,  56  Ark.  375,  S.  C. 
19  S.  W.  R.  973 ;  McClung's  Ex'rs  v. 


Spottswood,  19  Ala.  165, 170 ;  Bickford 
V.  Menier,  36  Hun  (N.  Y.),  446;  Gil- 
patrick  v.  Biddeford,  51  Me.  182; 
Thayer  v.  Boston,  19  Pick.  (Mass.) 
511 ;  Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
59  Iowa,  196;  Hoover  v.  Tibbits,  13 
Wis.  79;  Van  Vranken  t\  Union  News 
Co.,  78  Mich.  217,  S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R. 
337 ;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
penter, 44  Kan.  257,  S.C.  24  Pac.  R.  462, 

*  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tliomas, 
42  Ala.  672;  Ludwig  r.  Gorsuch,  154 
Pa.  St.  413,  S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  434. 

'  Nofsinger  v.  Ring,  4  ]\Io.  .\pp.  576; 
Loudon  Sav.  Fund  Soc.  r.  Hagerstown 
Savings  Bank,  36  Pa.  St.  498,  .502.  So, 
where  the  question  of  the  scope  of  an 
officer's  duty  or  employment  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  construction  of  a 
statute  or  ordinance  it  is  a  question  of 
law  for  the  court.  Denver  r.  Dean,  10 
Colo.  375,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  R.  30;  Geiser 
V.  Northampton  Co.  (Pa.),  11  Atl.  R. 
507. 


632  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  427 

law  for  the  court.  So,  where  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  agent 
are  so  well  and  generally  understood  that  the  court  will  take 
judicial  notice  of  them,  as  in  case  of  a  bank  cashier,  the  extent 
of  liis  general  authority  is  a  question  of  law  for  the  court. ^ 
Ratification  of  the  unauthorized  acts  of  an  agent  is  generally  a 
question  of  fact  for  the  jury,^  but  where  the  acts  relied  on  to 
show  ratification  are  undisputed  and  unequivocal,  the  question 
may  become  one  of  law  for  the  court. ^ 

§  427.  Alteration  of  written  instruments. — Where  there  is 
a  dispute  as  to  whether  an  alteration  has  been  made  in  a  writ- 
ten instrument,  the  question  is  one  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  de- 
termine, and  so  also  are  the  questions  as  to  when  and  by  whom 
it  was  made.^  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  where  there  are 
no  suspicious  circumstances  on  the  face  of  the  instrument  the 
law  will  presume  that  the  alteration  was  made  before  or  at  the 
time  of  the  execution  of  the  instrument.^  The  question  as  to 
the  authority  to  make  alterations  or  fill  blanks  is  also  one  of 
fact  for  the  jury.^  But  the  materiality  of  the  alteration  is  a 
question  of  law  for  the  court.' 

'  Farmers'  Bank  v.  Troy  City  Bank,  Gratt.  (Va.)  349;   Palmer  v.  Largent, 

IDoug.  (Mich.)  457;  Peninsular  Bank  5  Neb.  223,  S.  C.  25  Am.  R.  479;  Rog- 

V.  Hanmer,  14  Mich.  208.     See,  also,  ers  v.  Vosburgh,  87  N.  Y.  228;  Jones 

United  States  v.  City  Bank,  21  How.  v.  Alley, 4  Greene  (la.),  181;    Huston 

(U.  S.)  356,  364;  United  States  v.  Ba-  v.  Plato,  3  Colo.  402;   Miller  v.  Stark, 

deau,  31  Fed.  R.  697.  148  Pa.  St.  164,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  1058. 

''Fisher    v.    Stevens,    16   111.    397;  ^  Holton  v.  Kemp,  81  Mo.  661 ;  Mat- 

Middleton  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  thews  v.  Coalter,  9  Mo.  705;  Bailey  v. 

Co.,  62  Mo.  579;  Iron  Mountain  Bank  Taylor,  11  Conn.  531 ;  Neil  v.  Case,  25 

V.  Murdock,  62  Mo.  70,  77;  Hurtonsv.  Kan.  510,  S.  C.  37  Am.  R.  259;  Cox  v. 

Townes,  6  Leigh  (Va.) ,  47 ;  Van  Vran-  Palmer,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.) ,  431 ;  Stoner 

ken  V.  Union  News  Co.,  78  Mich.  217,  v.  Ellis,  6  Ind.  152.     But  there  is  an 

S.  C.  44  N.  W.  R.  337.  apparent  conflict  of   authority   upon 

'  Crooker  v.  Appleton,  25  Me.  131 ;  this  question,  due  in  some  measure  to 

Bryant  v.  Moore,  26  Me.  84.  the  different  circumstances  of   each 

*  Belfast  Nat.  Bank  v.  Harriman,  68  particular  case,  and  the  rule  is  stricter 

Me.  522;    Stahl  v.  Berger,  10  Serg.  &  in  regard  to  negotiable  paper  than  in 

R.  (Pa.)  170,  S.  C.  13  Am.  Dec.  666;  other  cases.     The  different  views  are 

Stephens  v.  Graham,  7  Serg.  &  R.505,  stated  and  the  authorities  collected  in 

S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  485;  Paramore  v.  1  Am.&Eng.  Encyc.of  Law,512,  e«seg. 

Lindsey,  63  Mo.  63 ;  Crabtree  v.  Clark,  «  State  v.  Dean,  40  Mo.  465 ;  Awde  v. 

20  Me.   337;    Haynes  v.   Haynes,  33  Dixon,  6  Exch.  869. 

Ohio  St.  598;    Ramsey  v.  McCue,  21  'Wood  v.  Steele,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  80: 


§  428  QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT.  533 

§  428.  Bomulary  and  location. — It  is  ordinarily  a  question 
of  fact  as  to  whether  a  particuhir  hjcality  is  within  the  limits 
of  a  city/  and  this  rule  was  applied  in  a  case  where  the  plaintiff 
sought  to  recover  taxes  paid  by  him  upon  land  which  he  mis- 
takenly supposed  was  within  the  city  limits.  It  was  held  that 
the  mistake  was  one  of  fact  and  not  of  law.^  So,  the  limits  of 
a  place,  not  a  public  corporation,  which  is  merely  described 
by  name,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  jury  from  the  evi- 
dence.^ It  is  for  the  court  to  determine  the  boundaries  of  a 
State  or  county  fixed  by  law,^  but  the  application  of  evidence 
in  ascertaining  and  settling  the  boundary  is  for  the  jury,  under 
proper  instructions.^  So,  generally,  while  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
court  to  construe  a  deed  or  other  writing,  it  is  for  the  jury  to 
apply  it,  as  construed  by  the  court,  to  the  subject-matter,  and 
thus  determine  whether  or  not  the  land  or  place  in  dispute  is 
that  described  in  the  instrument. '^ 

§  429.  Cause  and  effect. — Where  the  evidence  is  conflicting 
as  to  whether  or  not  one  act,  condition  or  thing  is  the  cause  of 
another,  the  question  is  one  of  fact  for  the  jury."     So,  even 

Overton  v.  Matthews,   35   Ark.    146;  Louis  r.  Meyer,  13  Mo.  App.  367,  382; 

State  V.  Dean,  40  Mo.  464;  Hunt  v.  Ottr.  Soulard,  9  Mo.  581;    Tasker  v. 

Adams,  6  Mass.  519 ;    Miller  v.  Gille-  Cilley,  59  N.  H.  575 ;  Herpel  v.  Malone, 

land,  19  Pa.  St.  119.  56  Mich.  199;  Wilmarth  v.  Woodcock, 

'  Grusenmeyeri'.Cityof  Logansport,  66  Mich.331,  33  N.W.  R.  400;  Brown  r. 

76  Ind.  549;'  City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Willey,  42  Pa.  St.  205;  Kaiser  v.  Bee- 

McAvoy,  86  Ind.  587 ;  Ilecker  v.  Ster-  mer  (Pa.) ,  13  Atl.  R.  909 ;  Williston  v. 

ling,  36  Pa.  St.  423,  428.  Morse,  10  Mete.   (Mass.)    17;   Clare- 

*  City  of  Indianapohsi).  McAvoy,  86  mont  v.  Carlton,  2  N.  H.  369;  White 
Ind.  587.  V.    Hermann,   51   111.   243;    Ferris  r. 

^Blandingu.  Sargent,  33  N.  H.  239.  Coover,  10  Cal.  589;  Whiter.  Burn- 

*  Johns  V.  Davidson,  16  Pa.  St.  512;  ley,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  235;  Ayers  v. 
United  States  v.  Jackalow,  1  Black  Watson,  113  U.  S.  594;  Hawkins  p. 
(U.  S.),  484.  See,  also,  Kime  v.  Polen  Nye,  59  Texas,  97;  Murray  v.  Spencer, 
(Pa.),  8  Atl.  R.  783.  88  N.  Car.  357.     "What  are  the  boun- 

*  United  States  r.  .Tackalow,  1  Black  daries  is  a  matter  of  law,  but  where 
(U.  S.),  484,487.  See.  also,  Pinkerton  they  are  is  a  matter  of  fact."  Wiiite 
V.  Ledoux,  129  U.  S.  346.  r.  Spreckels,  75  Cal.  610,  S.  C.  17  Pac. 

8  Opdyke  v.  Stephens,  28  N.  J.  L.  83,  R.  715 ;  Redmond  v.  Stepp,  100  X.  Car. 

90;  Greely  v.  AVeaver  (Me.),  13  Atl.  212,  S.  C.  6  S.  E.  R.  727. 

R.  575;  Abbott  t'.  Abbott,  51  Me.  575;  '  Carr  v.  Schafer,  15  Colo.  48,  S.  C. 

Robinson  v.  White,  42  Me.  209;  St.  24  Pac.  R.  873;  Schlacker  r.  Ashland 


534 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§429 


where  the  facts  are  undisputed,  if  more  than  one  reasonable 
inference  can  be  drawn. ^  But  where  only  one  reasonable  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  the  undisputed  facts,  even  if  the 
question  is  one  of  proximate  cause,  the  court  may  determine  it 
as  matter  of  law.'^  In  accordance  with  the  general  rule  that 
the  question  should  be  left  to  the  jury  it  has  been  held  that  the 
question  as  to  whether  a  fall  was  the  cause  of  a  certain  physical 
condition  was  properly  left  to  the  jury;^  that  whether  a  wife 
was  so  treated  by  her  husband  as  to  seriously  injure  her  health 
and  endanger  her  reason  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury;*  and 
that  whether  excessive  speed, ^  intoxicating  liquor,^  the  absence 
of  a  guard  or  fence,'  or  the  like,^  was  the  proximate  cause  of  a 
person's  death  or  injury  is  also  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury. 


Iron  Min.  Co.,  89  Mich.  253,  S.  C.  50 
N.  W.  R.  839;  Chicago,  St.  L.  &  P.  R. 
R.  Co.  V.  Fenn,  3  Ind.  App.  250,  S.  C. 
29  N.  E.  R.  790 ;  Hartvig  v.  N.  P.  Lum- 
ber Co.,  19  Ore.  .522,  S.  C.  25  Pac.  R. 
358 ;  Gram  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.R.Co., 
1  N.  Dak.  252,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  Rep.  972 ; 
Adams  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
100  Mo.  555,  S.  C.  13  S.  W.  R.  509; 
Giger  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  R.  Co., 
80  la.  492,  45  N.  W.  R.  906 ;  Moakler  v. 
Willamette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Ore.  189, 
S.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  948;  Estill  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  849; 
Northwestern  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Muske- 
gon Bank,  122  U.  S.  601;  U.  S.  Mut. 
Ace.  Ass'n  V.  Barry,  131  U.  S.  100. 

'  See  post,  §  437. 

'  Henry  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
76  Mo.  288,  293 ;  West  Mahanoy  Twp. 
V.  Watson,  112  Pa.  St.  574,  S.  C.  3  Atl. 
R.  866;  Holman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  562;  Pike  v.  Grand 
Trunk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R.  255; 
Bunting  v.  Hogsett,  139  Pa.  St.  363,  S. 
C.  12  L.  R.  A.  268;  Trapnell  v.  Red 
Oak  Junction,  76  Iowa,  744,  S.  C.  39 
N.  W.  R.  884. 

3  Keane  v.  Waterford,  130  N.  Y.  188, 
S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  130. 


*  Robinson  v.  Robinson  (N.  H.),  23 
Atl.  R.  362,  S.  C.  15  L.  R.  A.  121; 
Jones  V.  Jones,  62  N.  H.  463. 

^Tobin  V.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
(Mo.),  18  S.W.  R.  996;  Louisville,  N. 
O.  &  T.  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Caster  (Miss.),  5 
So.  R.  388. 

«Davies  v.  McKnight,  146  Pa.  St. 
610,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  320. 

'  Ewing  V.  North  Versailles  Tp.,  146 
Pa.  St.  309,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  338;  Mal- 
loy  V.  Walker  Tp.,  77  Mich.  448,  S.  C. 
6  L.  R.  A.  695 ;  Alexander  v.  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Minn.  515,  S.  C.  43 
N.  W.  R.  481. 

^Patten  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
32  Wis.  524;  Pielke  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  5  Dak.  444,  S.  C.  41  N.  W. 
R.  669;  Saxton  v.  Bacon,  31  Vt.  540; 
Scott  V.  Hunter,  46  Pa.  St.  192 ;  Willey 
V.  Belfast,  61  Me.  569;  Stark  v.  Lan- 
caster, 57  N.  H.  88;  Milwaukee,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Kellogg,  94  U.  S.  469; 
Sheridan  v.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  36  N.  Y.  39;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Pennell,  110  111.435;  Kreuziger 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  73  Wis. 
158;  Fairbanks  v.  Kerr,  70  Pa.  St.  86, 
S.  C.  10  Am.  R.  664;  Denver,  T.  &  G. 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Robbins,  2  Colo.  Ct.  of 


§430 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


535 


§  430.  Confidential  and  other  relations. — Tlie  question  as  to 
whether  contidcntial  relations  existed  between  the  parties  is 
usually  one  of  fact  for  the  jury/  although  there  are  some  cases 
in  which  the  question  must  be  one  of  law  for  the  court,  as,  for 
instance,  where  the  relation  of  trustee  and  cestui  que  trust,  guard- 
ian and  ward,  or  attorney  and  client  exists.  Whether  the  tani- 
ily  relation  or  that  of  master  and  servant  existed  between  a  niece 
and  her  aunt  is  a  question  for  the  jury  to  determine,  under 
proper  instructions,  in  a  suit  by  the  niece  against  the  estate  of 
her  aunt,  with  whom  she  lived  and  for  whom  she  cared  without 
any  express  contract  for  compensation.^  And  this  is  the  gen- 
eral rule  where  the  facts  are  disputed  and  tlie  question  is  as  to 
whether  the  relation  of  master  and  servant  exists.^  So  when 
the  question  as  to  whether  a  partnership  exists  is  disputed  and 
is  a  matter  of  doubt  dependent  upon  conflicting  evidence  or 
inferences  to  be  drawn  from  all  the  evidence,  it  is  one  of  fact 
or  mixed  law  and  fact  for  the  jury,'*     Where  the  facts  are  un- 


App.  313,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  R.  261 ;  Louis- 
ville, N.  A.  &  C.  R'y  Co.  v.  Nitsche, 
126  Ind.  229,  S.  C.  9  L.  R.  A.  750; 
Hayes  v.  Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co., 
Ill  U.  S.  228. 

'Chandler  i;.  Jost  (Ala.),  11  So.  R. 
636,  citing  Eastis  v.  jNIontgomery,  93 
Ala.  293,  S.  C.  9  So.  R.  311 ;  Snider  v. 
Burks,  84  Ala.  53,  S.  C.  4  So.  R.  225. 
In  the  first  case  cited  in  this  note,  the 
court  said  of  friendly  relations  exist- 
ing between  a  beneficiary  under  a  will 
and  the  testator,  and  the  condition  of 
the  testator:  "We  are  not  to  be  un- 
derstood as  indicating  that  all  tliese 
together  would  have  constituted  such 
a  confidential  relationship.  That  is  a 
question  of  fact  for  the  jury." 

*  J.-mes  V.  Gillen,  3  Ind.  App.  472, 
S.  C.  30  N.  E.  R.  7,  S.  C.  34  Cent.  L. 
Jour.  389,  and  note. 

8  Brophy  v.  Bartlett,  108  N.  Y.  632, 
S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R.  368;  State  v.  Hayes, 
59  N.  H.  450;  Northwestern,  etc., 
Packet  Co.  v.  McCue,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 


508 ;  Kimball  v.  Cushman,  103  ^lass. 
194.  See,  also,  Dwinelle  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  117,  S.  C.  24 
N.  E.  R.  319,  S.  C.  8  L.  R.  A.  224. 
(Jury  to  determine  whether  servant 
acting  in  scope  of  authority.)  Hussey 
V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  98  N.  Car. 
34,  S.  C.  2  Am.  St.  R.  312  (same  ques- 
tion). 

*Seabury  v.  Bolles,  51  N.  J.  L.  103, 
S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  952,  S.  C.  11  L.  R.  A. 
136.  See,  also,  Fletcher  v.  Pullen,  70 
Md.  205,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R.  887;  Hall- 
stead  v.  Coleman,  143  Pa.  St.  352,  S.  C. 
22  Atl.  R.  977,  S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  370; 
jMcDonald  v.  iNIatney,  82  :Mo.  358; 
Kahn  r.  Central  Smelting  Co.,  2  Utah, 
371;  Doggett  v.  Jordan,  2  Fla.  541. 
But  wdiat  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
partnership  in  law  is  for  the  court,  and 
the  jury  should  be  instructed  upon  the 
point.  Dulany  v.  f]lford,  22  S.  Car. 
304:  Cumpston  v.  McNair,  1  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  457.  AVliether  a  debt  is  a 
firm  ur  an  individual  debt  has  been 


536 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§431 


disputed  it  is  for  the  court  to  determine  as  matter  of  law 
whether  one  servant  bears  to  another  the  relation  of  fellow- 
servant/  but  in  other  cases  the  question  is  usually  one  for  the 
jury  to  determine,  under  proper  instructions."'^  So,  it  has  been 
held  a  question  for  the  jury  to  determine  whether  one  person 
is  the  tenant  of  another,^  and  whether  the  relation  of  bailor 
and  bailee  exists'*  where  the  facts  are  in  dispute. 

§  431 .  Construction  of  written  instruments. — The  construc- 
tion or  interpretation  of  a  written  instrument  is  generally  a 
question  of  law  for  the  court. -^  This  rule  includes  not  only 
contracts,  deeds,  wills  and  letters  but  also  judicial  and  other 
public  records.^     The  legal  effect  of  the  writing  is  for  the  court 


held  a  question  for  the  jury,  Warri- 
ner  v.  Mitchell,  128  Pa.  St.  153,  S.  C. 
18  Atl.  R.  337. 

1  Dube  V.  Lewiston,  83  Me.  211,  S. 
C.  22  Atl.  R.  112 ;  Yates  v.  McCullough 
Iron  Co.,  69  Md.  370,  S.  C.  16  Atl.  R. 
280;  McGinty  v.  Athol  Reservoir  Co., 
155  Mass.  183,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  510; 
Quebec  Steamship  Co.  v.  Merchant,  133 
U.  S.  375,  S.  C.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  397  ;  Stone 
V.  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.,  132  Pa.  St.  206,  S. 
C.  19  Atl.  R.  67.  See,  also.  Miller  v. 
So.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  20  Ore.  285,  S.  C.  4 
Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.,  1,  and 
note. 

» Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fitz- 
gerald, 40  111.  App.  476;  Lake  Erie, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Middleton,  142  111.550, 
S.  C.  32  N.  E.  R.  453 ;  Joliet  Steel  Co.  v. 
Shields,  32  111.  App.  598;  Babcock  v. 
Old  Colony  R.  R.  Co.,  150  Mass.  467, 
S.  C.  23  N.  E.  R.  325;  Chicago  &  A. 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Kelly,  127  111.  637,  S.  C. 
21  N.  E.  R.  203 ;  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R. 
R.  Co.  V.  McKenzie,  81  Va.  71. 

3  Bowe  V.  Hyland,  44  Minn.  88,  S.  C. 
46.  N.  W.  R.  142;  State  v.  Hayes,  59 
N.  H.  450;  Neppachu.  Jordan,  15  Ore. 
308,  S.  C.  14  Pac.  R.  353. 

♦  Holohan  v.  Mix,  134  Pa.  St.  88,  S. 
C.  19  Atl.  R.  496. 


*  Davis  V.  Badders,  95  Ala. 348,  S.  C. 
10  So.  R.422 ;  Edwards  v.  Smith,  63  Mo. 
119;  Willard  v.  A.  Siegel  Gas  Co.,  47 
Mo.  App.  1 ;  Lapeer  Ins.  Co.  v.  Doyle, 
30  Mich.  159;  McKenzie  v.  Sykes,  47 
Mich.  294 ;  Streeter  v.  Streeter,  43  111. 
155 ;  Bailey  v.  Ferguson,  39  111.  App. 
91  ;  Drew  v.  Towle,  30  N.  H.  531 ; 
Williams  r. Waters,  36  Ga.  454 ;  Dumn 
V.  Rothermel,  112  Pa.  St.  272;  Roth  v. 
Miller,  15  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  100;  Shep- 
herd V.  White,  11  Tex.  346;  Thomas 
V.  Thoma:.,  15  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  178; 
Nash  V.  Drisco,  51  Me.  417 ;  Rogers  v. 
Colt,  21  N.  J.  L.  704;  Eddy  v.  Chace, 
140  Mass.  471 ;  Higgins  v.  McCrea,  116 
U.  S.  671 ;  Grady  v.  Cassidy,  104  N.  Y. 
147;  Warner  v.  Thompson,  35  Kan. 
27;  Friend  v.  Friend,  64  Md.  321; 
Burke  v.  Lee,  76  Va.  386 ;  Union  Bank 
V.  Hey  ward,  15  S.  Car.  296;  Bedford 
v.  Flowers,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.)  242; 
Van  Eman  v.  Stanchfield,  8  Minn.  518 ; 
Dixon  V.  Duke,  85  Ind.  434;  Spence  v. 
Board,  117  Ind.  573 ;  Russell  v.  Merri- 
field,  131  Ind.  148,  S.  C.  30  N.  E.  Rep. 
957;  Reagan  ^\  Sheets,  130  Ind.  185, 
S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1065  ;  Neilson  v.  Har- 
ford, 8  Mees.  &  W.  823 ;  Parker  v.  Ib- 
betson,4C.  B.  (N.  S.)  345. 

«  Wyatt  V.  Steele,  26  Ala.  639 ;  Shook 


§431 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


537 


to  determine.^  So,  the  question  as  to  its  validity  upon  its 
face,  as  whether  it  aj)pears  to  be  duly  executed  or  the  like,  is  a 
question  of  law  for  the  court.-*  Where  tli.  terms  of  a  writing 
are  ambiguous  and  uncertain  parol  evidence  of  the  circum- 
stances, situation  and  acts  of  the  parties  may  sometimes  be  re- 
ported to  in  order  to  discover  the  true  intention  and  the  inter- 
)retation  given  to  it  by  the  parties  themselves.  In  such  a  case 
he  question  usually  becomes  one  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  deter- 
mine.^ And,  generally,  where  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  oral 
evidence  of  custom,  usage,  or  other  collateral  facts  and  circum- 
stances in  order  to  discover  the  true  intention  of  the  parties, 
the  question  becomes  one  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  dcterniiiic '  un- 


p.  Blount,  67  Ala.  301 ;  Sims  v.  Boyn- 
ton,  32  Ala.  353;  State  v.  Anderson, 
80  La.  Ann.  557 ;  Reagan  v.  Sheets,  130 
Ind.  185,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1065;  State 
".  Robbins  (Me.),  13  Atl.R.  584;  Har- 
vey V.  Cummings,  68  Texas,  599,  S.  C. 
5  S.  W.  R.  513. 

'  Keith  V.  Sands,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Mich. 
172,  S.  C.  50  N.  W.  R.  133;  Dumn  v. 
Rothermel,  112  Pa.  St.  272;  Luckhart 
V.  Ogden,  30  Cal.  547 ;  Levy  v.  Gadsby, 
3  Crcnch  (U.  S.),  180;  Arctic  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Austin,  69  N.  Y.  470,  S.  C. 
25  Am.  R.  221 ;  Cottrell  v.  Cottrell,  126 
Ind.  181,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  905;  Bell 
V.  Keepers,  37  Kan.  64;  Solary  v. 
Stultz,  22  Fla.  263 ;  Robbins  v.  Spencer, 
121  Ind.  594 ;  Hughes  v.  Dundee  Mort- 
gage, etc.,  Co.,  140  U.  S.  98,  S.  C.  11 
Sup.  Ct.  R.  727. 

■•'  Bullock  V.  Narrott,  49  111.  62 ;  Roe 
V.  Taylor,  45  111.  485;  Riley  v.  Riley, 
36  Ala.  496;  Garner  v.  Lansfonl,  12 
Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.)  558;  Snyder  r. 
Kurtz,  61  la.  593,-  Pierce  r.  Randolph, 
12  Tex.  290  (question  of  invalidity 
against  public  policy). 

'Reissner  v.  Oxley,  80  Ind.  580; 
Brown  v.  McGrau,  14  Pet.  {V.  S.)  493; 
Weil  V.  Schwartz,  21  Mo.  App.  372,  .380 ; 
Darling  v.  Dodge,  36  Me.  370;  Wil- 
coxen    V.   Bowles,    1    La.   Ann.   230; 


Williamson  v.  McClure,  37  Pa.  St.  402; 
Watson  V.  Blaine,  12  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
131 ;  School  Dist.  v.  Lynch,33  Conn.380. 
*  Blair  v.  Lynch,  105  N.  Y.  636;  Pit- 
ney V.  Glens  Falls  Ins.  Co.,  65  N.Y.6; 
First  Nat.  Bank  r.  Dana,  79  N.Y.  108; 
Home  B.  &  L.  Ass'n  v.  Kilpatrick,  140 
Pa.  St.  405,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  397 ;  Ed- 
wards V.  Goldsmith,  16  Pa.  St.  43; 
Foster  r.  Berg,  104  Pa.  St.  324 ;  Vornor 
V.  Henry,  3  Watts  (Pa.),  385;  Hopson 
V.  Brunwankel,  24  Tex.  607 ;  Haney  v. 
Caldwell,  59  Ark.  156 ;  Etting  v.  Bank, 
11  Wheat.  (U.S.)  59;  Barreda  v.  Sils- 
bee,  21  How.(U.  S.)  146;  Bell  v.  AVood- 
ward,  46  X.  H.  315  ;  Philibert  i'.  Burch, 
4  Mo.  App.  470;  McNichol  r.  Pacific 
Express  Co.,  12  Mo.  App.  407 ;  Prather 
V.  Ross,  17  Ind.  495 ;  Holman  v.  Crane, 
16  Ala.  570,  580;  Bedard  v.  Bonville, 
57  Wis.  270;  Bradford  v.  S.  Car.  R.  R. 
Co. ,7  Rich.  L.  201 ;  Coupland  r.  Housa- 
tonic  R.  R.  Co.,  61  Conn.  531,  S.  C.  15 
L.  R.  A.  534,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  870; 
Smith  V.  Worn,  93  Cal.  206,  S.  C.  28 
Pac.  R.  944;  Dahlstrom  r.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  (Mo.),  18  S.  W.  R.  919. 
Compare  Begg  r.  Forbes,  30  Eng.  L.  & 
Eq.  508 ;  Milbank  r.  Dennistoun,  21  N. 
Y.  386;  McAvoy  v.  Long,  13  111.  147, 
150;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Kenna,  13  Lea  (Tenn.),  280,  288. 


638  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  431 

der  proper  instructions  from  the  court. ^  So  it  has  been  held 
that  whether  a  term  used  in  a  tariff  act  has  a  trade  meaning, 
and  whetlier  a  certain  article  is  included  therein,  should  be 
left  to  the  jury  to  determine.^  In  some  cases  a  modified  view 
is  taken,  and  it  is  held  that,  although  the  meaning  of  a  doubt- 
ful term  may  be  left  to  the  jury,  the  final  interpretation  of  the 
instrument  is  for  the  court,  giving  to  the  ambiguous  term  the 
meaning  declared  by  the  jury.^  Where  a  writing  is  illegible 
it  would  seem,  upon  principle,  to  be  within  the  province  of 
the  jury  to  decipher  it  and  determine  the  words  or  figures  in- 
tended to  be  used  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  to  this  effect  is  the 
weight  of  authority,*  although  there  are  several  decisions  to 
the  contrary.^  There  is  a  similar  conflict  of  authority  as  to 
whether  the  court  or  jury  should  determine  the  intention  and 
meaning  where  blanks  have  been  left  unfilled  in  a  written  in- 
strument, but  it  is  generally  held  to  be  a  question  for  the  jury.® 
So,  "where  the  effect  of  a  written  instrument  collaterally  in- 
troduced in  evidence  depends  not  merely  on  its  construction 
and  meaning,  but  also  upon  extrinsic  facts  and  circumstances, 

1  Williams  v.  Woods,  16   Md.  220;  W.  535.     See,  also,  Morrell -y.  Frith,  3 

Deutmann  r.  Kilpatrick,  46  Mo.  App.  M.  &  W.  402;    March  v.  Allabough, 

624;     Smith    v.    Faulkner,    12    Gray  103  Pa.  St.  335;    Adams,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

(Mass.),  251;  Simpson  v.  Pegram,  112  Cook,  16  Bradw.  (111.)  161. 

N.  Car.541,  S.C.  17  S.  E.E.  430;  Ken-  *  Armstrong    v.   Burrows,   6  Watts 

yon  V.  Knights  Templars',  etc.,  Ass'n,  (Pa.),  266;    Cabarga  v.  Seeger,  17  Pa. 

122  N.Y.  247;  Eaton  v.  Smith,  20  Pick.  St.  514;    Paine  v.  Ringold,  43  Mich. 

(Mass.)  150;  Houghton  v.  Watertown  341;    Fenderson  v.  Owen,  54  Me.  372; 

Fire  Ins.  Co.,  131  Mass.  300;  Fowie  u.  Burnham   v.  Allen,  1  Gray   (Mass.), 

Bigelow,  10  Mass.  379;  Curtis  r.Martz,  496;     Arthur    v.    Roberts,    60    Barb. 

14  Mich.  506;    Taylor  v.  McNutt,  58  (N.  Y.)  580;    Jefferson  Co.  v.  Savory, 

Tex.  71;    Farwell  v.  Tillson,  76  Me.  2  Greene  (la.),  238;    Norman  v.  Mor- 

227.     In  other  words,  as  some  of  these  rell,  4  Ves.  769 ;    Jones  on  Constr.  of 

authorities  say,  the  entire  matter  may  Com.  &  Trade  Contracts,  §  17. 

be  considered  as  a  mixed  question  of  ^  Riley  v.  Dickens,  19  111.  29;    Com- 

law  and  fact.  monwealth  r.  Riggs,  14  Gray  (Mass.), 

"Baumgarten  v.    Magone,   50  Fed.  376;  Rex  ?;.  Hucks,  1  Stark,  N.  P.,  424. 

R.  69.  In  Partridge  v.  Patterson,  6  la.  514,  it 

^  Edwards  v.  Smith,  63  Mo.  119, 127;  was  held  discretionary  with  the  court 

Edelman   v.   Yeakel,   27   Pa.    St.   26;  to  submit  the  question  to  the  jury. 

Neilson  v.  Harford,  8  Mees.  &  W.  806,  "Conner  v.  Routh,  7  How.  (Miss.) 

823;  Hutchinson  V.  Bowker,  5  Mees.  &  176;    Boyd  v.  Brotherson,   10  Wend. 


§432 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


539 


the  inferences  to  be  di'uwn  from  it  are  inferences  of  fact  and 
not  of  law."^ 

§  432.    Construction  of  lunvritton  contracts  and  lanofuao^e. 

— Questions  as  to  wliat  words  were  used  by  the  parties,  their 
intention  and  the  meaning  of  the  words  as  matters  of  fact  are 
for  the  jury  to  determine,'^  but  when  these  facts  are  ascertained 
their  legal  effect  is  for  the  court.'*  This  rule  applies  in  cases 
of  slander  as  well  as  in  cases  of  contract,  and  if  the  words  used 
are  equivocal  and  susceptible  of  more  than  one  construction 
their  meaning  as  used  and  understood  is  a  question  of  fact  for 
the  jury.*  In  such  a  case  the  court  should  instruct  the  jury 
as  to  what  is  necessary  to  constitute  slander,  and  then  leave  it 


(N.  Y.)  93 ;  Dobson  v.  Finley,  SJones, 
L.  (N.  Car.),  495;  Bell  v.  Woodward, 
46  N.  H.  315.  Contra  Coolbroth  v. 
Purinton,  29  Me.  469;  Kincannon  v. 
Carroll,  9  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  11;  Langdon 
V.  Goole,  3  Lev.  21. 

'Per  Clifford,  J.,  in  West  v.  Smith, 
101  IT.  S.  263.  To  the  same  effect  are 
Reynolds  r.  Richards,  14  Pa.  St.  205; 
Barreda  v.  Silsbee,  21  How.  (U.  S.) 
146, 167  ;  Primm  v.  Haren,  27  Mo.  205 ; 
Conovert).  Inhabitants  of  Middletown, 
42  N.  J.  L.  382, 

»  Copeland  v.  Hall,  29  Me.  93 ;  Kuns 
V.  Young,  34  Pa.  St.  60;  Broward  v. 
Doggett,  2  Fla.  49;  Dodge  r.  Janvrin, 
59  N.  H.  16;  Folsom  v.  Plumer,  43 
N.  H.  469;  Wagner  r.  Egleston,  49 
Mich.  218;  Mastin  v.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 
83  Mo.  634;  AVatson  v.  Stromberg,  46 
Mo.  App.  630;  Keesey  v.  Old,  82  Tex. 
22,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  928;  Burritt  v. 
Villenuve,  92  Mich.  282,  S.  C.  52  N.W. 
R.  614.  See,  also,  Adams  v.  Davis,  16 
Ala.  748;  Cunningham  r.  Cambridge 
Sav.  Bank,  i;!8  .Mass.  480;  St.  Louis 
Nat.  Stock  Yards  v.  Wiggins,  102  111. 
514;  Deming  v.  Foster,  42  N.  H.  165; 
Codding  r.  Wood,  112  Pa.  St.  371  ;  Bru- 
bakor  r.  Okeson,  36  Pa.  St.  519.  So, 
where  the  evidence  is  conflicting  it  has 


been  held  a  question  for  the  jury  to 
determine  whether  the  contract  is  in 
writing  or  parol.  Jenness  v.  Berry,  17 
N.  H.  549;  Roberts  v.  Bonaparte,  73 
Md.  191,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  689;  Mc- 
Laughlin V.  Wheeler  (S.  Dak.),  47  N, 
W.  R.  816 ;  Collins  v.  Houston,  138  Pa. 
St.  481. 

'  Globe  Works  v.  Wright,  106  Mass. 
207;  Estes  v.  Boothe,  20  Ark.  583; 
Warnick  v.  Grosholz,  3  Grant  Cas. 
(Pa.)  234;    Islay  v.  Stewart,  4  Dev.  & 

B.  (N.  Car.)  160;  Smalley  v.  Hen- 
drickson,  29  N.  J.  L.  371 ;  Judge  v. 
Leclaire,  31  Mo.  127;  Diefenback  v. 
Stark,  56  Wis.  462 ;  Terry  v.  Shively, 
64  Ind.  106. 

*Hays  r.  Hays,  1  Humph.  (Tenn.) 
402;  Twombly  r.  .Alonroe,  136  ISIass. 
464 ;  Thompson  v.  Powning,  15  Nev. 
195 ;  Blakeman  v.  Blakeman,  31  Minn. 
396;  McLaughlin  v.  Bascom,  38  la. 
660;  Ex  pane  Baily,  2  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
479;  Sanderson  v.  Caldwell,  45  N.  Y. 
398;  Van  Vactor  v.  Walkup,  4(5  Cal. 
124;    Mosier  v.  Stoll,  119  Ind.  244,  S. 

C.  20  N.  E.  R.  752;  Roe  r.  Chitwood, 
36  Ark.  210;  Haley  r.  State,  63  Ala. 
89;  Park  r.  Piedmont  Ins.  Co.,  51  Ga. 
510;  Odgerson  Libel  and  Slander,  95. 


540 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§433 


to  them  to  determine  whether  the  words  charged  were  used  by 
the  defendant  and  whether  the  circumstances  and  the  meaning 
of  the  words  were  such  as  to  bring  the  case  within  the  defini- 
tion.^ But  where  the  words  are  unequivocal  and  clearly  de- 
famatory or  actionable  per  se  the  court  should  so  instruct  the 
jury  as  matter  of  law.^ 


§  433.  Fraud  and  good  faith. — The  question  of  fraud,  at 
least  where  it  depends  upon  intent,  is  usually  for  the  jury  un- 
der proper  instructions  from  the  court. "^  But  it  is  said  that 
where  fraud  is  "self-evident"  the  court  should  decide  the  ques- 
tion without  submitting  it  to  the  jury,*  and  it  is  undoubtedly 
within  the  province  of  the  court  to  decide  the  matter  as  one  of 
law  where  the  facts  are  undisputed  and  but  one  reasonable  in- 


»  State  V.  Goold,  62  Me.  509 ;  Shat- 
tuck  V.  Allen,  4  Gray  (Mass.),  540; 
In  re  Noyes'  Will,  61  Vt.  14,  S.  C.  17 
Atl.  R.  743 ;  Parmiter  v.  Coupland,  6 
Mees.  &  W.  105. 

2  Gottbehuet  v.  Hubachek,  36  Wis. 
515;  Smith  v.  Stewart,  41  Minn.  7,  S. 
C.  42  N.  W.  R.  595;  Thompson  v. 
Grimes,  5  Ind.  385 ;  Waugh  v.  Waugh, 
47  Ind.  580 ;  Gabe  v.  McGinnis,  68  Ind. 
538;  Pugh  v.  McCarty,  44  Ga.  383; 
Bourreseau  v.  Detroit  Evening  News, 
63  Mich.  425,  S.  C.  30  N.  W.  R.  376; 
Lewis  V.  Chapman,  16  N.  Y.  369;  Sny- 
der r.  Andrews,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  43; 
Pittockv.O'Niell,63Pa.St.253;Haight 
V.  Cornell,  15  Conn.  74 ;  Negley  v.  Far- 
pow,  60  Md.  158,  S.  C.  45  Am.  R.  715. 

3  Griel  v.  Lomax,  86  Ala.  132,  S.  C. 
5  So.  R.  325 ;  Bulger  v.  Rosa,  119  N.Y. 
459;  Michelstetter  v.  Weiner,  82  Wis. 
298,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  435 ;  Morgan  v. 
Hecker,  74  Cal.  540,  S.  C.  16  Pac.  Rep. 
317;  Weaver  v.  Owens,  16  Ore.  301,  S. 
C.  18  Pac.  R.  579 ;  Riley  v.  Melquist, 
23  Neb.  474,  S.  C.  36  N.  W.  Rep.  657 ; 
Weaver  v.  Nugent,  72  Texas,  272,  S. 
C.  10  S.  W.  Rep.  458;  Buckley  v. 
Artcher,  21  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  585 ;  Hanna 


V.  Phillips,  1  Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  253; 
Woodruff  V.  Bowles,  104  N.  Car.  197, 
S.  C.  10  S.  E.  R.  482;  Renninger  v. 
Spatz,  128  Pa.  St.  524,  S.  C.  18  Atl.  R. 
405 ;  Woolenslagle  v.  Runals,  76  Mich. 
545,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  454;  Haven  v, 
Neal,  43  Minn.  315,  S.  C.  45  N.  W.  R. 
612;  Wolf  iJ.  Kohr,  133  Pa.  St.  13,  S. 
C.  19  Atl.  R.  284;  Marsh  u.  Cramer,  1& 
Colo.  331,  S.  C.  27  Pac.  R.  169 ;  Gaines 
V.  White  (S.  Dak.),  47  N.  W.  Rep. 
524 ;  Rosenthal  v.  Vernon,  79  Wis.  245, 
S.  C.  48  N.  W.  Rep.  485;  Dennison  v. 
Grove,  52  N.  J.  L.  144,  S.  C.  19  AtL 
Rep.  186;  Jewell  v.  Knight,  123  U. 
S.  426;  Warner  v.  Norton,  20  How. 
(IT.  S.)  448 ;  Leasure  v.  Coburn,  57  Ind. 
274;  Goff«.  Rogers,  71  Ind.  459;  Pow- 
ell V.  Stickney,  88  Ind.  310;  Phelps  v. 
Smith,  116  Ind.  387 ;  Brown  v.  Mitch- 
ell, 102  N.  Car.  347,  S.  C.  11  Am.  St. 
R.  748,  and  note. 

*  Hardy  v.  Simpson,  13  Ired.  L.  (N. 
Car.)  132;  Williams  ».  Hartshorn,  30 
Ala.  211;  Bigelow  on  Fraud,  468.  See, 
also,  Sturtevant  v.  Ballard,  9  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  337;  Worseley  ?;.  De  Mattos, 
1  Burr.  467,  474. 


^34 


QUESTIONS    OF    LA\*'    AND    FACT. 


541 


ference  can  be  drawn  from  them.'  The  question  of  gooa  faith, 
like  that  of  fraud,  is  also  for  tlie  jury  upon  conflicting  evidence 
or  inference.''*  Thus,  where  money  was  paid  by  the  plaintiff  to 
the  defendant,  who  had  a  matrimonial  bureau  and  carried  on 
a  marriage  brokerage  business,  under  an  agreement  to  furnish 
the  plaintiff  with  a  husband,  or  return  the  money,  it  was  held 
in  an  action  to  recover  the  money,  that,  although  the  contract 
was  illegal  and  there  was  no  evidence  of  undue  influence  or  over- 
persuasion,  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  the  facts  as  to  the 
^.'quality  of  guilt  or  the  parties  being  in  pari  delicto  were  for  the 
jury.-^  So,  the  good  faith  of  an  occupying  claimant  in  making 
improvements  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.^ 

§  434.  Identity. — The  question  of  identity,  like  questions  in 
regard  to  boundaries  and  location,  is  ordinarily  one  of  fact  for 
the  jury;^  but  it  has  been  held  a  question  for  the  court,  and 

Bennehoff,  121  111.  42G,  S.  C.  13  N.  E. 
R. 150. 

'Duval  V.  AVellman,  124  N.  Y.  156, 
S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  343. 

♦Merrill  v.  Hilliard,  59  N.  11.481; 
Johnson  r.  Schumacher,  72  Texas,  334, 
S.  C.  12  S.  W.  R.  207 ;  Sedgwick  & 
Wait  on  Tr.  of  Tit.  to  Land,  §  694. 

*  Identity  of  persons :  Swicard  v. 
Hooks,  85  Ga.  580,  S.  C.  11  S.  E.  R. 
863;  People  v.  Pick,  89  Cal.  144,  S.  C. 
26  Pac.  R.  759 ;  Begg  v.  Begg,  56  Wis. 
534;  Prentiss  v.  Blake,  34  Vt.  460; 
McDuffie  V.  Clark,  39  Hun  (N.Y.),  166; 
Com.  r.  Caponi,  155  Mass.  534,  S.  C.30 
N.  E.  R.  82;  Durfeer.  Abbott,  61  Mich. 
471,  S.  C.  28  N.  W.  R.  521.  Identity 
of  property :  State  v.  Babb,  76  Mo.  501 ; 
Com.  V.  Cunningham,  104  Mass.  545; 
Weber  r.  Illing,  (i6  Wis.  79;  Scott  r. 
Pheakly,3Watts  (Pa.),  50;  Sawyer  r. 
^liddkieborough  Town  Co.  (Ky.),  17  S. 
W.  R.  444.  See,  generally,  Miller  r. 
INIarks,  20  Mo.  App.  369;  State  r.  Chee 
Gong,  17  Ore.  6.35,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.882; 
Brown  r.  IMcCollum.  7t)  Iowa,  479,  S. 
C.41N.  W.  R.  197;  Link  v.  Page,  72 


'  Huggins  Cracker,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ellis, 
45  Mo.  App.  585;  Prentiss  Tool  Co.  v. 
Schirmer,  45  N.  Y.  S.  R.  20,  S.  C.  17  N. 
Y.  Supp.  662;  Upson  v.  Raiford,  29 
Ala.  188 ;  Gage  v.  Parker,  25  Barb.  (N, 
Y.)  141 ;  Erwin  v.  Voorhees,  26  Barb. 
127 ;  Beasley  v.  Bray,  98  N.  Car.  266,  S. 
C.  3  So.  R.  497;  Pettibone  v.  Stevens, 
15  Conn.  19,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  57; 
Dodd  V.  McCraw,  8  Ark.  83,  S.  C.  46 
Am.  Dec.  301. 

"  Maverick  v.  Maury,  79  Texas,  435, 
S.  C.  15  S.  W.  Rep.  686;  Louden'. 
Schluter,  78  Texas,  103,  S.  C.  14  S.  AV. 
R.  205;  Parke  v.  Franco-Am.  Trading 
Co.,  120N.Y.51,S.  C.23N.E.  R.996; 
Parker  v.  State,  88  Ala.  4,  S.  C.  7  So. 
R.  98;  Wright  r.  Lothrop,  149  Mass. 
385,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  963;  Burroughs 
V.  Ploof,  73  Mich.  607,  S.  C.  41  N.  W. 
Rep.  704  (question  as  to  boiia  ^fides  of 
holder  of  note)  ;  Roth  v.  Colvin,  32 
Vt.  125  (same  question) ;  Gall  v.  Gall, 
114  N.  Y  109,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  Rep.  106; 
State  r.  Huff,  76  Iowa,  200,  S.  C.  40  N. 
W.  Rep.  720;  State  v.  Eckler,  106  Mo. 
685,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  814;  Fisher  r. 


542  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  435 

not  for  the  jury,  to  determine  whether  the  matters  involved  in 
an  action  are  the  same  as  those  in  issue  in  a  former  action 
within  the  rule  as  to  a  former  adjudication.^  Wiiere  an  article 
is  used  for  several  purposes  and  its  classification,  under  the 
tariff  laws,  depends  upon  the  preponderance  of  use,  or  where 
such  classification  depends  upon  the  trade  name  of  the  article, 
and  evidence  is  necessary  to  determine  it,  the  question  is  one 
for  the  jury.^  So,  where  an  action  at  law  was  brought  to  re- 
cover damages  for  the  infringement  of  a  patent  and  the  evi- 
dence was  conflicting,  it  was  held  that  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  specifications  in  the  patent  and  the  publication 
and  drawings  introduced  to  show  prior  use  of  the  same  device 
as  a  defense  described  the  same  thing  or  differed  materially, 
was  one  for  the  jury  under  proper  instructions,  and  not  for  the 
court  to  determine  as  matter  of  law.^ 

§  435.  Intent — Malice. — Intent,  purpose,  or  design  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  for  the  jury,^  except  where,  as  stated  in  another 
section,  the  court  can  determine  it  from  the  language  or  terms 
used  in  a  writing,^  and  except  where  the  law  conclusively  pre- 
sumes a  certain  intent  from  the  doing  of  a  certain  act.*^    Thus, 

Texas,  592,  S.  C.  10  S.  W.  Rep.  699;  283;    Cross  v.  Barnett,  65  Wis.  431; 

Com.  V.  Buckley,  147  Mass.  581,  S.  C.  B^edy  v.  Macomber,  47  Me.  451 ;  West 

18  N.  E.  R.  571 ;  ante,  §§  37,  .38.  v.  White,  56  Mich.  126 ;  Knight r.  New 

^  Nickless  v.  Pearson,  126  Ind.  477,  England,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Cush.   (Mass.) 

S.  C.  26  N.  E.  R.  478;  Tutt  v.  Price,  7  271 ;  Shepherd  v.  Cassiday,  20  Texas, 

Mo.  App.  194.     But  it  has  also  been  24;  Hine  v.  Bowe,  114  N.  Y.  350,  S.  C. 

held  that  the  question  should  be  left  21  N.  E.  R.  733;  Copas  v.  Anglo-Am. 

to  the  jury  where  extrinsic  parol  evi-  Provision  Co.   (Mich.),  14  N.  W.  R. 

dence  is  necessary  to  determine  what  690;  Neisler  v.  Harris,  115  Ind.  560. 

issues  were  in  fact  involved  in  the  ^  See  §  431,  anie.     See,  also,  Beasley 

prior  action.     Packet  Co.  v.  Sickels,  5  v.  Bray,  98  N.  Car.  266. 

Wall.  (U.S.)  580;  Tutt  w.  Price,  7  Mo.  «  See  1    Bish.  Cr.  L.  314;  Flinn  v. 

App.  194.  State,  24  Ind.  286;  Achey  v.  State,  64 

^  Robertson  v.  Oelschlaeger,  137  U.  Ind.  59;  Shover  v.  State,  10  Ark.  259 

S.  436,  S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  148;  Rob-  Com.  v.  Hersey,  2  Allen  (Mass.),  173 

ertson  v.  Solomon,  144  U.  S.  603,  S.  C.  Com.  u.Webster,  5  Cush.  (Mass.),  295 

12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  752,  Reynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U.  S.  145 

'  Keyes  v.  Grant,  118  U.  S.  25,  S.  C.  People    v.   Petheram,   64  Mich.  252 

6  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  974.     See,  also,  Battin  State  v.  Lautenschlager,  22  Minn.514 

V.  Taggert,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  74,  85.  United  States  ij.  Harper,.33  Fed.  R.  471 

♦Coxe  V.  Wolcott,  27  Pa.    St.  154;  State  t;.  Smith,  93  N.  Car.  516. 
Dumn  V.  Rothermel,  112  Pa.  St.  272, 


§435 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


543 


the  question  of  the  intent  with  which  a  person  accused  of  bur- 
glary entered  tlie  house  is  for  the  jury;^  so  is  the  intent  of  one 
charged  with  conspiracy,'^  obtaining  money  by  false  pretenses-^ 
or  the  like.'*  Tlie  rule  is  the  same  in  civil  actions.  Thus, 
questions  of  domicile,'^  of  the  revocation  of  a  will,*^  and  of  ded- 
ication" are  usually  questions  of  fact,  or  mixed  questions  of 
law  and  fact  to  be  determined  by  the  jury;  and  so  are 
questions   of    intent    to   abandon    a    homestead,^   to   evict     a 


>  People  V.  Winters,  93  Cal.  277,  S. 
C.  28  Pac.  R.  946;  Peoples.  Griffin,  77 
Mich.  585,  S.  C.  43  N.  W.  R.  1061. 

"  People  V.  Flack,  125  X.  Y.  324,  S. 
C.  11  L.  R.  A.  807.  See,  also,  Russell 
V.  Post,  138  U.  S.  425. 

'People  V.  Baker,  96  N.  Y.  340. 

*  See  the  following  criminal  cases : 
Burke  v.  State,  71  Ala.  377 ;  People  v. 
Griffin,  77  Mich.  585;  Carter  v.  State, 
22  Fla.  553 ;  People  v.  Kelly,  113  N. 
Y.  647 ;  McKenna  v.  People,  81  N.  Y. 
360;  Buckner  v.  Com.,  14  Bush.  (Ky.) 
603 ;  State  v.  Swayze,  30  La.  Ann.  1325 ; 
Russell  V.  State,  68  Ga.  785 ;  Money  v. 
State,  89  Ala.  1 10. 

*  Pennsylvania  v.  Ravenel,  21  How. 
(U.S.)  103;  Tiller  t\  Abernathy,  37 
Mo.  196;  State  v.  Palmer,  65  N.  H.  9, 
S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  977 ;  Foss  v.  Foss,  58  N. 
H.283;  Potts  ('.Davenport,  79111.  455; 
Cochrane  tJ.  Boston,  4  Allen  (^lass.), 
177;  Lyman  v.  Fiske,  17  Pick.  (Mass.) 
231;  Fulham  v.  Howe,  62  Vt.  386,  S. 
C.  20  Atl.  Rep.  101.  See,  also,  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Ohle,  117  U.  S.  123. 

« Lawyer  v.  Smith,  8  Mich.  411; 
Burns  v.  Burns,  4  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  295. 
See,  also.  Law  v.  Law,  83  Ala.  432,  S. 
C.  3  So.  R.  752. 

'Nixon  V.  Town  of  Biloxi  (Miss.),  5 
So.  R.  621 ;  Eastland  v.  Fogo,  58  Wis. 
274;  Gardiner  r.  Tisdale,  2  Wis.  153; 
Harding  v.  Jasper,  14  Cal.  642 ;  People 
V.  Reed,  81  Cal.  70 ;  Elgin  v.  Beckwith, 
119  111.  367,  10  N.  E.  R.  558  ;  IMcKey  r. 
Hyde  Park,  134  U.S.  84 ;  Woodt-.Hurd, 


34  N.  J.  L.  87;  Casey  v.  Tama  Co.,  75 
Iowa,  655,  S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  1.38;  El- 
liott on  Roads  and  Streets,  120.  "There 
may  be  cases  where  the  facts  are  un- 
disputed and  where  they  admit  of  but 
one  legal  interpretation,  or  can  lead 
to  one  conclusion  only,  and  in  all  such 
cases  the  question  is  purely  one  of  law 
(citing  White  v.  Bradley,  66  Me.  254; 
State  V.  Schwin,  65  Wis.  207,  26  N. W.R. 
568;  Kennedy  v.  Mayor,  65  ^Id.  514), 
but  in  general  the  elements  of  law  and 
fact  are  intermingled,  and  in  all  such 
cases  the  court  directs  the  jury  as  to 
tlie  law  and  commits  to  their  decision 
the  question  of  the  existence  of  the 
facts  alleged  to  exist  as  well  as  the  ques- 
tion of  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from 
them."  Elliotton  Roads  and  Streets, 
121.  Where  the  question  depen<ls  up- 
on the  construction  and  effect  of  a  stat- 
ute or  a  map  or  other  written  instru- 
ment it  is  generally  a  matter  for  the 
court  to  decide  as  a  question  of  law. 
Miller  v.  City  of  Indianapolis,  123  Ind. 
196 ;  State  r.  Schwin,  26  X.  W.  R.  568, 
S.  C.  65  AVis.  207. 

8  Carter  Lumber  Co.  r.  Clay  (Texas), 
10  S.W.  R.  293;  Craddock  v.' Edwards, 
81  Texas,  609,  S.  C.  17  S.  W.  R.  228; 
Locke  r.  Rowell,  47  X.  H.  46;  Fyffe  r. 
Beers,  18  Iowa,  4 ;  Brennan  v.  Wallace, 
25  Cal.  108.  So,  generally,  the  ques- 
tion of  abandonment  is  usually  for  the 
jury.  Marshall  r.  Harney  Peak,  etc., 
Co.  (S.  Dak.),  47  X.  W.  R.290;  Brown 
r.  McCormick,  23  Mo.  App.  181 ;  Par- 


544 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§435 


tenant/  and  the  like.^  Intention  is  a  fact  to  be  proved  as  any 
other  fact, 3  and  where  parties  are  competent  witnesses  they 
may  testify  directly  as  to  their  own  intent.*  Malice  in  fact,  or 
actual  malice,  such  as  is  required  in  actions  for  malicious  pros- 
ecutions, is  also  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury;^  but  where  the 
law  conclusively  presumes  malice  from  certain  acts  and  those 
acts  are  undisputed  the  question  is,  of  course,  one  of  law  for 
the  court.® 


kins?'.  Dunham,  3  Strob.  L.  (So.  Car.) 
224;  Taylor  r.  Middleton,  67  Cal.  656. 
But  where  the  intention  does  not  gov- 
ern the  question  is  one  of  law  for  the 
court.  Brentlinger  v.  Hutchinson,  1 
Watts  (Pa.),  46;  Watson  v.  Gilday,  11 
Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  337;  McDonald  v. 
Mulhollan,  5  Watts  (Pa.),  173 ;  Jacobs 
V.  Figard,  25  Pa.  St.  45 ;  State  v.  Seay, 
64  Mo.  89,  97. 

'  Henderson  v.  Mears,  1  Post.  &  F. 
636;  Upton  v.  Townsend,  33  Eng.  L. 
<fe  Eq.  212;  Lynch  v.  Baldwin,  69  Rl. 
210. 

«  Herron  r.Dibrell,87  Va.  289, 12  S.E. 
R,  674  (intent  in  making  representa- 
tions of  quality  of  article  at  time  of 
sale)  ;  Lee  v.  Burnham,  82  Wis.  209, 
S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  255;  Barnes  v. 
Brown,  69  N.  Car.  439  (payment)  ; 
Brouwer  v.  Hill,  1  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 
629;  Cross  v.  Barnett,  65  Wis.  431 
(whether  conveyance  was  intended 
for  father  or  son)  ;  Smiley  v.  An- 
derson (Neb.),44N.W.R.86  (whether 
services  were  voluntary  or  not)  ;  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  128 
Pa.  St.  442,  S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  515;  Rus- 
sell V.  Post,  138  U.  S.  425  (intent  of 
defendant  charged  in  civil  action  with 
conspiracy  to  defraud). 

•'Ivlgington  v.  Fitzmaurice,  55  Law 
Jour.  Rep.  (Ch.)  650;  11  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ency.  of  Law,  376. 

*  Kerrains  v.  People,  60  N.  Y.  221  ; 
Kennedy  v.  Ryall,  67  N.  Y.  379;  Bid- 
inger  v.  Bishop,  76  Ind.  244 ;  McKee 


V.  Perchement,  69  Pa.  St.  342 ;  Dan- 
forth  ?).  Carter,  4  Iowa,  230;  Stearns 
V.  Gosselin,  58  Vt.  38;  Over  v.  Schif- 
fling,  102  Ind.  191 ;  Heap  v.  Parrish, 
104  Ind.  36;  Delano  v.  Goodwin,  48 
N.  H.  203;  "Evidence  of  Intent,"  22 
Cent.  L.  Jour.  271.  Compare  Brown 
V.  Stark,  83  Cal.  636;  Cake  v.  Potts- 
ville  Bank,  116  Pa.  St.  264 ;  Browne  v. 
Hickie,  68  Iowa,  330. 

^Newell  V.  Downs,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
523;  Strickler  v.  Greer,  95  Ind.  596; 
Center  v.  Spring,  2  Iowa,  393 ;  Ritchey 
V.  Davis,  11  Iowa,  124;  Potter  ■?;.  Seale, 
8  Cal.  217;  Humphries  v.  Parker,  52 
Me.  502 ;  Page  v.  Gushing,  38  Me.  523 ; 
Moody  V.  Deutsch,  85  Mo.  237 ;  Von 
Latham  v.  Libby,  38  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  339 ; 
Schofield  V.  Ferrers,  47  Pa.  St.  194; 
Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Connell, 
127  111.  419,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  89 ;  Glas- 
gow V.  Owen,  69  Texas,  167,  S.  C.  6  S. 
W.R.  527 ;  Jones  w.Fruin,  26  Neb.  76, 42 
N.  W.  R.  283 ;  Wagstaff  v.  Schippel, 
27  Kan.  450;  Gee  v.  Culver,  12  Ore. 
228. 

«Swanv.  Tappan,  5  Cush.  (Mass.) 
104;  Negley  v.  Farrow.  60  Md.  158,  S. 
C.  45  Am.  Rep.  715  (libel  and  slander 
cases)  ;  Jenkins  v.  State,  82  Ala.  25, 
S.  C.  2  So.  R.  150;  Kemp  v.  State,  13 
Texas  App.  561 ;  Sweeney  v.  State,  35 
Ark.  585;  State  v.  Brown.  12  Minn. 
5.38;  Beauchamp  v.  State,  6  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  299;  McDermott  v.  State,  89 
Ind.  187;  llenning  v.  State,  106  Ind. 
386  (malice  implied  from  use  of  dead- 


§436 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


545 


§  43G.  Laws  and  ordinances. — Tlie  existence  and  validity 
of  domestic  laws  and  ordinances  are  questions  for  the  court  to 
determine/  although  the  existence  of  any  particular  foreign 
law  is  generally  held  to  be  a  nnitter  of  fact  to  be  proved  and 
submitted  to  the  jury."  The  interpretation  of  statutes  and 
other  written  laws  and  ordinances  is  also  a  matter  for  the 
court.''  As  the  court  must  determine  the  validity  of  laws  and 
ordinances,  it  necessarily  follows  that  questions  as  to  their 
passage*  and  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  an  ordinance'  are  also 
for  the  court.     So,  the  reasonableness^  and   validity"  of  the 


ly  weapon) .  See,  also,  notes  to  White- 
ford  V.  Com.,  18  Am.  Dec.  771,  and 
Spies  V.  People,  3  Am.  St.  R.  320. 

'  See  Gardiner  v.  Collector,  (i  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  499;  Post  v.  Supervisors,  105 
U.  S.  667;  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins, 
«4  U.  S.  260;  Roulo  v.  Valcour,  58  N. 
H.  347  (existence  of  "ordinance) ; 
Sutherland  on  Stat.  Constr.,  §181; 
Cooley's  Const.  Lim.,  159,  et  seq.;  37 
Alb.  Law  Jour.,  428,  449. 

^  Ilolman  v.  King,  7  Mete.  (Mass.) 
384  ;  Ufford  v.  Spaulding,  156  Mass.  65, 
30N.E.R.360;  Haven  i\  Foster,9  Pick. 
(Mass.)  112;  Alexanders.  Penna.  Co., 
48  Ohio  St.  623 ;  Charlotte  v.  Choteau, 
33  Me.  194;  Cobb  v.  Griffith,  etc.,  Co., 
87  INIo.  90 ;  Hooper  v.  Moore,  5  Jones 
L.  (N.  Car.)  130;  Moore  v.  Gwynn,  5 
Ired.  L.  (N.  Car.)  187;  Brackett  v. 
Norton,  4  Conn.  517  ;  Francis  i\  Ocean 
Ins.  Co.,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  404;  Robin- 
son V.  Dauchy,  3  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  20; 
1  Taylor's  Ev.,  §§5,  48.  Contra  Fer- 
guson V.  Clifford,  37  N.  H.  86;  1 
Greenl.  Ev.,  §486;  Story  on  Conflict 
of  Laws,  §638.  See,  also,  Munroe  v. 
Douglass,  5  N.  Y.  447. 

'  Barnes  ?•.  Mayor,  19  Ala.  707 ;  Inge 
V.  Murphy,  10  Ala.  897;  Fairbanks  v. 
Woodhouse,  6  Cal.  433;  Denver,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Olsen,  4  Col.  239;  Ely  v. 
James,  123  ^Nlass.  36;  Gibson  v.  Man- 
ufacturers' Ins.  Co.,  144  Mass.  81 ; 
Maltus  V.  Shields,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)  553; 

35 


Penna.Co.r.Frana,13  111. App.91;  Allen 
V.  Dullie,  43  Mich.  1  ;  Carleton  v.  Peo- 
ple, 10  Mich.  250;  Harris  v.  Doe,  4 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  369;  Large  v.  Orvis,  20 
Wis.  696;  Ennis  v.  Smith,  14  How. 
(L^.  S.)  399.  Compare  Montgomery  v. 
Townsend,  84  Ala.  478,  2  So.  R.  155; 
Mueller  v.  State,  76  Ind.  310;  Smith  r. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  120  Mass.  490; 
Holman  v.  King,  7  Mete.  (Mass.)  384; 
Gallatin  Turnpike  Co.  r.  State,  16  Lea 
(Tenn.),  36. 

*  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,94  U.S.260. 

*City  of  Lake  View  v.  Tate,  130  111. 
247,  S.  C.  6  L.  R.  A.  268 ;  Green  v.  City 
of  Indianapolis,  22  Ind.  192 ;  Mayor 
of  Hudson  V.  Thorne,  7  Paige  Ch.  (N. 
Y.)  261 ;  Brooklyn  v.  Breslin,  57  N.Y. 
591;  1  Beach  on  Pub.  Corp.,  §512; 
1  Dillon  Munic.  Corp.,  §327;  17  Am. 
&  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law,  248. 

'Fertich  r.  Michener,  111  Ind.  472, 
S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  605;  Chicago,  etc.. 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  McLallen,  84  111.  109; 
Evison  V.  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  45  Minn.  370,  S.  C.  11  L.  R.  A. 
434;  Commonwealth  v.  Worcester,  3 
Pick.  (Mass.)  462;  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  r.  Graham,  94  Ala.  545, 10  So.  R. 
283;  Paxson  v.  Sweet.  13  N.  J.  L.  196; 
Angell  ct  Ames  on  Corporations,  §357. 
Compare  State  t\  Overton,  24  N.  J.  L. 
435;  Morris,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres, 
29  N.  J.  L.  393. 

'  Neier  v.  Missouri   Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 


546 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§437 


regulations  and  by-laws  of  a  corporation  are  questions  for  the 
court. 

§  437.  Negligence. — Negligence  is  usuall}^  considered  to  be 
a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact.^  In  other  words,  the  exist- 
ence or  non-existence  of  negligence  in  any  particular  case 
where  the  facts  are  in  dispute  or  more  than  one  reasonable  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  is  a  question  for  the  jury  to  determine 
under  proper  instructions  from  the  court. ^  There  can  be  no 
actionable  negligence  unless  there  is  some  legal  duty  which 
the  defendant  owed  to  the  plaintiff,  and  whether  there  is  such 
a  duty  in  any  particular  case  or  not  is  generally  a  question  of 
law  for  the  court, ^  while  it  is  usually  for  the  jury  to  determine 
from  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  whether  or  not 


12  Mo.  App.  25;  State  v.  Overton,  24 
N.  J.  L.  435,  S.  C.  61  Am.  Dec.  671 ;  Hi- 
bernia  Fire, etc., Co.??.  Commonwealth, 
^93  Pa.  St.  264 ;  Vedder  v.  Fellows,  20  N. 
Y.  126 ;  Queen  v.  Sadlers  Co.,  10  H.  of 
L.  Cas.  404,  and  authorities  cited  in 
last  note,  supra. 

'  Trow  V.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

24  Vt.  487,  S.  C.  58  Am.  Dec.  191; 
Wright  V.  Maiden,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4 
Allen  (Mass.),  283;  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  -y.  Terry,  8  Ohio  St.  570; 
Toledo  &  Wabash  R'y  Co.  v.  Goddard, 

25  Ind.  185 ;  Chicago  &  Eastern  111.  R. 
R.  Co.  V.  Ostrander,  116  Ind.  259; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Walborn, 
127  Ind.  142;  1  Shearm.  &  Redf.  Neg., 
§52;  Bishop  Non-Cont.  Law,  §442. 

'  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State, 
36  Md.  366;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Maugans, 
61  Md.  53 ;  Detroit,  etc.,  R.R.Co.  t'.Van 
Steinburg,  17  Mich.  99;  Indiana  Car 
Co.  t'.  Parker,  100  Ind.  181 ;  Evans  v. 
Adams  Express  Co.,  122  Ind.  362; 
Beach  on  Contrib.  Neg.,  §  161 ;  Wool- 
ery,  Adm'r,  v.  Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C. 
R'y  Co.,  107  Ind.  381 ;  Trow  v.  Ver- 
mont Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  24  Vt.  487,  S.  C. 
58  Am.  Dec.  191 ;  Purvis  v.  Coleman, 
1  Bosw.  321 ;  Huntu.  Salem,  121  Mass. 


294;  Eureka  Co.  v.  Bass,  81  Ala.  200; 
Gratiot  v.  Mo.  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  (Mo.), 
16  L.  R.  A.. 189;  Wood  v.  Bridgeport, 
143  Pa.  St.  167,  S.  C.  22  Atl.  R.  752; 
Chicago  V.  Moore,  139  111.  201,  S.  C. 
28  N.  E.  R.  1071 ;  Davis  v.  Kan.  City 
Belt  R.  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App.  180 ;  Terra 
Haute  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Voelker,  129 
111.  540,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  20, 23 ;  Hepfel 
v.^i.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 49  Minn.  263, 
51  N.  W.  R.  1049;  Anderson  v.  North,' 
etc.,  Co.,  21  Ore.  281,  S.  C.  28  Pac. 
R.  5;  Blanton  v.  Dold  (Mo.),  18  S.  W. 
R.  1149;  Ala.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Sum- 
mers, 68  Miss.  566,  S.  C.  10  So.  R.  63; 
Kummel  v.  Germania  Sav.  Bank,  127 
N.  Y.  488,  S.  C.  13  L.  R.  A.  786;  Ault- 
man  v.  Falkum,  47  Minn.  414,  S.  C.  50 
N.  W.  R.  471 ;  Washington,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  McDade,  135  U.  S.  554. 

3 Sutton  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  66 
N.  Y.  243;  Coppins  v.  N.  Y.  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.),  26; 
Nolan  V.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  53 
Conn.  461,  S.  C.  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cas.  342 ;  Tarwater  v.  Hannibal  R.  R. 
Co.,  42  Mo.  193;  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Fronk,  67  Md.  339;  Met- 
ropolitan R'y  Co.  V.  Jackson,  L.  R.,  3 
App.  Cas.  193. 


§437 


tiUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


547 


there  has  been  a  breacli  of  the  duty  proximately  resulting  in 
dainage  to  the  plaintiff.'  It  is  held,  however,  that  where  both 
the  duty  and  the  extent  of  performance  are  to  be  ascertained 
as  facts,  the  jury  should  be  left  to  determine  what  reasonable 
and  ordinary  care  is  required  under  the  circumstances  as  well 
as  the  question  of  the  defendant's  failure  to  exercise  such  care; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  for  them  to  determine  in  such  a 
case  what  is  negligence  as  well  as  whether  it  has  been  proved. ^ 
But  where  the  duty  is  defined,  the  failure  to  perform  it  is  negli- 
gence and  may  be  so  declared  by  the  court. ^     So,  where  there  is 


'  Gerke  v.  California,  etc.,  Co.,  9 
Cal.  251,  S.  C.  70  Am.  Dec.  650;  Lilly 
V.  N.  Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  107  N. 
Y.  566;  Sloan  v.  Cent.  la.  R.  R.  Co., 
62  la.  728;  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Bayliss,  74  Ala.  150,  S.  C.  19 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  480 ;  Tabler  v. 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  93  Mo.  79; 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kellogg, 
94  U.  S.  469;  White  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  R.  Co.,  31  Kan.  280;  Ferren  v.  Old 
Colony,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  143  Mass.  197, 
§.  C.  9  N.  E.  R.  608;  Grand  Trunk, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Ives,  144  U.  S.  408, 
S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  679 ;  Shoner  v. 
Penna.  Co.,  130  Ind.  170,  S.  C.  28  N. 
E.  R.  616;  Ashman  v.  Flint  &  P.  M. 
R.  R.  Co.,  90  Mich.  567,  51  N.  W.  R. 
645 ;  Osborne  v.  Detroit,  32  Fed.  R.  36. 
» McCully  V.  Clarke,  40  Pa.  St.  399, 
S.  C.  80  Am.  Dec.  584;  Penna.  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Barnett,  59  Pa.  St.  259;  Phila. 
City  Pass.  R'y  Co.  v.  Hassard,  75  Pa. 
St.  376,  377 ;  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hen- 
sil,  70  Ind.  569,  575 ;  Simms  v.  So.  Car. 
R.  R.  Co.,  27  S.  Car.  268,  S.  C.  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  571.  See,  also,  Ohio 
&  Miss.  R'y  Co.  v.  Collarn,  73  Ind.  261 ; 
Penna.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Frana,  112  111.  398 ; 
Railroad  Co.  r.  Stout,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
(557;  Worthington  v.  Cent.  Vt.  R.  R. 
Co.,  64  Vt.  107,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  590; 
Omaha  v.  Aver,  32  Neb.  375,  S.  C.  49 
N.W.R.445 ;  Schneider  v.  Second  Ave. 


R.  R.  Co.,  133  N.  Y.  583;  Connolly 
V.  Waltham,  156  Mass.  368,  S.  C.  31 
N.  E.  R.  302;  Fisher  v.  Camljridge, 
133  N.  Y.  527;  Griffin  v.  Auburn,  58 
N.  H.  121.  And,  see  particularly, 
Gratiot  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co. 
(Mo.),  16  L.  R.  A.  189,  195,  et  seq., 
opinion  of  Thomas,  J.,  on  petition  for 
rehearing,  where  the  entire  subject  is 
elaborately  considered  and  fort-ibly 
presented. 

'  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta 
Oil  Co.,  63  Pa.  St.  14 ;  Schum  r.  Penna. 
R.  R.  Co.,  107  Pa.  St.  8;  Hoag  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  85  Pa.  St. 
293;  Clements  v.  La.  Electric  Light 
Co.,44La.Ann.692, 16  L.R.A.43;  Karle 
V.  Kan. City, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  476 ; 
Delaware,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Con- 
verse (U.  S.),  4  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  Cas.  434;  Grand  Trunk,  etc., 
R'y  Co.  V.  Ives  (U.  S.),  6  Lewis'  Am. 
R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  130,  and  note; 
Terre  Haute  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Voelker, 
129  111.  540,  S.  C.  22  N.  E.  R.  20,  24; 
Chicago  &  Eastern  111.  R.  R.  Co.  r. 
Boggs,  101  Ind.  522,  S.  C.  51  Am.  R. 
761.  In  North  Carolina,  it  is  said  in 
general  terms,  that  "what  amounts  to 
negligence  is  a  question  of  law." 
Hessing  (-.Wilmington, etc. ,R.R. Co. ,10 
Ired.L.402,  S.C.  51  Am.Dec.395 ;  Brock 
V.  King,  3Jones(N.  Car.  L.),45;  Emry 
V.  Raleigh,  etc.,  Co.,  109  N.  Car.  589,  S. 


548 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§438 


no  evidence  from  which  negligence  can  reasonably  be  inferred, 
or  where  the  facts  are  undisputed  and  but  one  reasonable  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  them,  the  question  becomes  one 
of  law  for  the  court  and  should  be  taken  from  the  jury.^  And 
where  a  special  verdict  is  returned,  it  is  for  the  court  to  deter- 
mine as  matter  of  law  upon  the  facts  specially  found  by  the 
jury,  whether  there  is  actionable  negligence  or  not.^ 

§  438.  Notice  and  knowledge. — Whether  a  person  or  cor- 
poration has  actual  notice  or  knowledge  of  a  certain  fact  is  a 
question  for  the  jury  to  determine  from  the  evidence;^  and  so. 


C.  14  S.  E.  R.  352.  It  is,  of  course,  to 
be  understood  that  it  is  not  actionable 
negligence  unless  it  is  also  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  the  injury  complained 
of.  For  this  reason  it  is  sometimes 
said  to  be  merely  evidence  of  negli- 
gence, and  there  doubtless  are  pecul- 
iar cases  in  which  the  circumstances 


Co.  V.  Landauer  (Neb.),  54  N.  W.  R. 
976;  Grand  Trunk  R'y  Co.  v.  Ives  (U. 
S.),  6  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas., 
130,  and  note. 

2  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Spencer,  98  Ind.  186;  Pittsburgh,  C. 
&  St.  L.  R'y  Co.  V.  Adams,  105  Ind. 
151 ;  Bellefontaine  R'y  Co.  v.  Hunter, 


may  be  such  as  to  excuse  the  perform-    33  Ind.  335 ;    Conner  v.  Citizens'  St. 


ance  of  a  statutory  duty  or  make  the 
question  one  for  the  jury  to  determine 
under  proper  instructions. 

'Purcell  V.  English,  86  Ind.  34; 
Faris  v.  Hoberg  (Ind.),  33  N.  E.  R. 
1028;  Indianapolis  &  St.  Louis,  R'y 
Co.  V.  Watson,  114  Ind.  20;  Rush  v. 
Coal  Bluff  Mining  Co.,  131  Ind.  135; 
Koons  V.  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.,  102 
Pa.  St.  164;  Brower  ».  Edson,  47Mich. 
91;  Barton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  52  Mo.  253;  Penna.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Righter,  42  N.  J.  L.  180;  Moore  v. 
Westervelt,  21  N.  Y.  103;  Beisiegel  v. 
N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y.  9; 
Dahl  V.  Milwaukee  City  R.  R.  Co.,  62 
Wis.  652;  Abbett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  30  Minn.  482;  Hathaway  v. 
East  Tenn.  R.  R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  489; 
Chaffee  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
17  R.  I.  658,  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  141; 
Holland  v.  West  End.  St.  R'y  Co., 
155  Mass.  387,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  622; 
Houston  V.  Culver,  88  Ga.  34,  S.  C. 
13  S.  E.  R.  953 ;  Borden  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  131  N.  Y.  671,  S.  C.  30 
N.  E.  R.  586;   Chicago,   etc..   R.   R. 


R'y  Co.,  105  Ind.  62 ;  Louisville,  N.  A. 
&  C.  R'y  Co.  V.  Eves,  1  Ind.  App.  224; 
Sprinkle  V.  Taylor,  1  Ind.  App.  74.  But 
where  more  than  one  reasonable  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  as  to  freedom 
from  contributory  negligence  the  jury 
must  find  it  as  a  fact.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R'y  Co.  V.  Granier  (Ind.),  34N.E.  R. 
714. 

^  Saltmarsh  v.  Bower,  22  Ala.  221 ; 
Muldrow  V.  Robinson,  58  Mo.  331 ; 
Walworth  v.  Seaver,  30  Vt.  728;  Fran- 
cis «.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  110 
Mo.  387,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.935;  Troxel 
V.  Vinton,  77  la.  90,  S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R. 
580;  Wheeler  V.  McGuire,  86  Ala.  398, 
S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  808;  State  v.  White, 
101  N.  Car.  770,  S.  C.  7  S.  E.  R.  715, 
S.  C.  11  Crim.  L.  Mag.,  231 ;  Reilly  v. 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  94  Mo.  600, 
S.  C.  7  S.  W.  R.  407;  Snyder  v.  Gor- 
den,  46  Hun  (N.  Y.),  5.38;  Van  Hook 
?j. Walton,  28  Tex.  59 ;  Rhines  v.  Baird, 
41  Pa.  St.  256 ;  Brown  v.  P:astern  R.  R. 
Co.,  11  Cush.  (Mass.)  97;  Berkshire 
Woollen  Co.  v.Proctor,7Cush.  (Mass.) 
417. 


§438 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


549 


ordinarily,  is  the  question  of  the  existence  of  such  facts  and 
circumstances  as  should  charge  him  or  it  with  constructive  or 
implied  notice.^  But  the  court  should  instruct  the  jury  as  to 
what  is  necessary  to  constitute  constructive  notice,  and,  where 
the  facts  are  undisputed,  the  case  may  be  so  clear  and  the  in- 
ference so  strong  that  the  court  can  determine  the  question  as 
one  of  law.'^  The  question  often  arises  in  actions  against  cities 
for  defects  in  their  streets,  and  it  is  generally  held  that  it  is 
for  the  jury  to  determine  whether  the  facts  and  circumstances 
are  such  as  to  charge  the  city  with  either  actual  or  constructive 
notice,^  although  the  court  may  determine  the  question  where 
the  facts  and  inferences  are  clear  and  unequivocal.*  So,  it 
has  been  held  that  whether  or  not  an  employe  had  notice  of  a 
rule  or  regulation  of  his  employer,^  and  whether  or  not  he  had 
knowledge  of  the  dangers  of  his  employment^  are  questions  of 


"Newport  v.  Miller  (Ky.),  18  S.  W. 
R.  835;  Ft.  Wayne  v.  Patterson,  3 
Ind.  App.  34,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  167; 
City  of  Aurora  v.  Bitner,  100  Ind.  396; 
Nute  V.  Nute,  41  N.  H.  60;  Chiles  v. 
Conley,  2  Dana  (Ky.),  21;  Schutt  v. 
Large,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  373. 

»  Railroad  Co.  v.  Stout,  17  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  657;  City  of  Warsaw  v.  Dunlap, 
112  Ind.  576 ;  Appel  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  Y.  550,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R. 
93 ;  Birdsall  v.  Russell,  29  N.  Y.  220 ; 
Page  V.  Waring,  76  N.  Y.  463 ;  Pollak 
V.  Davidson,  87  Ala.  551.  Constructive 
notice  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term, 
as  distinguished  from  implied  notice, 
is  said  to  be  a  question  or  presump- 
tion of  law  which  can  not  be  rebutted. 
Drey  v.  Doyle,  99  ]\Io.  459;  Plumb  i\ 
Fluitt,  2  Anstr.  428;  Kennedy  r. 
Green,  3  Mylne  &  K.  699;  Townsend 
V.  Little,  109  U.  S.  504,  S.  C.  3  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  357,  357. 

»  Hoey  r.Natick,153Mass.528,  B.C.  27 
N.  E.  R.  595 ;  Turner  r.  City  of  New- 
burgh,  109  N.  Y.  301.  306;  Kunz  v. 
City   of  Troy,    104    N.  Y.   344;     Ft. 


Worth  V.  Johnson,  84  Texas,  137,  S. 
C.  19  S.  W.  R.  361 ;  Colley  v.  West- 
brook,  57  Me.  181,  S.  C.  2  Am.  R. 
30;  City  of  Aurora  v.  Bitner,  100 
Ind.  396;  Woolsey  v.  Ellenville,  15  N. 
Y.  Supp.  647 ;  Kunkel  r.  Chicago,  37 
111.  App.  325 ;  Nesbitt  v.  City  of  Green- 
ville, 69  Miss.  22,  S.  C.  30  Am.  St.  R. 
521,  and  note.  See,  also,  Elliott  on 
Roads  and  Streets,  461. 

*  City  of  Warsaw  v.  Dunlap,  112  Ind. 
576.  See,  also.  Chapman  r.  Mayor,  55 
Ga.  566;  Klatt  v.  Milwaukee,  53  Wis. 
196;  City  of  Chicago  r.  McCarthy,  75 
111.  602;  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets, 
461. 

*  Louisville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Wat- 
son, 90  Ala.  68,  S.  C.  8  So.  R.  249; 
Francis  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
110  :\Io.  .387,  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  R.  935. 

*  McDermott  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  435.  So  as  to  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge  of  machinery. 
Ingerman  v.  Moore.  90  Cal.  410,  S.  C. 
25  Am.  St.  R.  138.  See,  also,  Chicago 
&  St.  L.  R'y  Co.  r.  Ashling.  34  111. 
App.  99;    Magee  r.  North.  Pac.  R.  R. 


550  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  439 

fact  for  the  jury.  And  whether  or  not  the  absence  of  a  flag- 
man from  a  raih'oad  crossing  at  which  he  was  stationed  is  no- 
tice to  a  street-car  driver  that  it  is  safe  to  cross,  so  as  to  excuse 
him  from  looking  out  for  trains,  has  also  been  held  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  for  the  jury.^ 

§  439.  Paymoiit. — The  question  of  payment  is  generally  one 
of  intent  and  is  therefore  a  question  of  fact,  or  a  mixed  ques- 
tion of  law  and  fact,  for  the  jury.^  Thus,  whether  a  note,  bill 
or  check  was  taken  as  an  absolute  and  unconditional  payment 
or  not  is  a  question  for  the  jury  to  determine.^  So,  it  is  for 
the  jury  to  determine  upon  which  of  two  bills  or  debts  a  pay- 
ment was  intended  to  be  made,  where  the  evidence  upon  the 
subject  is  conflicting.^  So,  whether  a  payment  was  made  by  a 
surety  for  the  benefit  of  an  individual  or  for  the  benefit  of  the 
firm  of  which  the  latter  was  a  member  has  been  held  a  question 
of  fact  for  the  jury,-''  and  the  character  in  which  one  to  whom 
money  is  paid  receives  it  has  also  been  held  to  be  a  question 
of  fact.^  The  rules  in  regard  to  accord  and  satisfaction,  so  far 
at  least  as  the  question  of  intent  is  concerned,  are  substantially 
the  same.'' 

Co.,  78  Cal.  430,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  R.  114.  ^  Craddock  v.  Dwight,  85  Mich.  587, 

Compare  Appel  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  644 ;  Lyman  v.  Bank, 

Co.,  Ill  N.  Y.  550,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  93.  12  How.  (U.  S.)  225, 243,  244 ;  Johnson 

1  Richmond  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  v.  Weed,  9  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  310,  S.  C.  6 

Co.,  87  Mich.  374,  S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  Am.  Dec.  279;  Sellers  v.  Jones,  22  Pa. 

621.    See  and  compare  Elliott  on  Roads  St.  423;  Schillings.  Durst,  42  Pa.  St. 

and  Streets,  605,  608.  126 ;  Segrist  v.  Crabtree,  131  U.  S.  287, 

*  Hess  V.   Frankenfield,  106  Pa.  St.  S.  C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  687. 

440;  Germania  Ins.  Co.  v.  Davenport  *  Yerkes  v.  Norris,  90  Mich.  234,  S. 

(Pa.),9Atl.R.517;  Briggs  v.  Holmes,  C.  51  N.  W.  R.  366;    Phillips  v.  Mc- 

118  Pa.  St.  283,  S.  C.  4  Am.  St.  R.  597 ;  Guire,    73  Ga.  517 ;    Blair  v.  Lynch, 

Barnes  v.  Brown,  69  N.  Car.  439;  Ben-  105  N.  Y.  636,  S.  C.  11  N.  E.  R.  947. 

ton  V.  Toler,  109  N.  Car.  238,  S.  C.  13  ^  Welch  v.  Zerger,  29  111.  App.  348. 

S.  E.  R.  763;  Smith's  Appeal,  52  Mich.  See,   also,   McCloskey  v.   McCloskey 

415;  Lyon  v.  Guild,  5  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  (Pa.),  16  Atl.  R.  30. 

175;  Waters  v.  Waters,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  « Dore  v.   Billings,  26  Maine,  56;  1 

519;  Grantham  v.   Canaan,  38  N.  H.  Thomp.  Tr.,  §  1256. 

268 ;  Ewing  v.  Peck,  26  Ala.  413 ;  Dean  '  Frick  v.  Algeier,  87  Ind.  255 ;  Stone 

V.  Toppin,   130  Mass.  517;    Wood  v.  v.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  450;  Hardman  v. 

Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.,  128  U.  S.  416,  S.  Bellhouse,  9  Mees.  &  W.  596;  Hall  v. 

C.  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  131.  Flockton,  16  Ad.  &  El.  (N.  S.)  1039. 


§440 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


551 


§  440.  Possession  and  ownershii). — Questions  of  possession 
and  ownership  are  usually  mixed  (questions  of  law  and  fact, 
that  is,  they  are  for  the  jury  to  determine  under  proper  instruc- 
tions from  the  court. ^  It  is  for  the  court  to  decide  what  is 
necessary  to  constitute  or  establish  it  and  for  the  jury  to  de- 
cide, under  the  court's  instructions,  whether  or  not  it  has  been 
established  by  the  evidence  in  the  particular  case."'^  But  where 
the  facts  and  inferences  to  be  drawn  therefrom  are  undisputed 
the  question  is  one  of  law  for  the  court. '^  So,  what  constitutes 
color  of  title  is  a  question  of  law,'*  but  where  it  depends  upon 
good  faith  and  that  fact  is  in  controversy  it  is  for  the  jury  to 
determine  whether  the  evidence  shows  good  faith  or  not.^     It 


See,  also,  Keerl  v.  Bridgers,  10  Sm.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  G12;  Willard  v.  Germer,  1 
Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  50;  W'ilson ?\  Hanson, 
20  N.  H.375. 

'  Paxson  V.  Bailey,  17  Ga.  600; 
O'Hara  v.  Richardson,  40  Pa.  St.  385; 
Farnum  v.  Ewell,  59  Vt.  327,  S.  C.  10 
Atl.R.527 ;  Severn  y.  Yoran,  15  Ore.644, 
S.  C.  15  Pac.  R.  395;  Logan  v.  Fried- 
line  (Pa.),  14  Atl.  Rep.  343;  Miller  v. 
Beck,  68  Mich.  76,  S.  C.  35  N.  W.  R. 
899 ;  Hacker  v.  Horlemus,  69  Wis.  280, 
S.  C.  34  N.  W.  R.  125;  Thomas  t^.  En- 
gland, 71  Cal.  456,  S.  C.  12  Pac.  R.  491 ; 
Angle  V  Bilby,  25  Neb.  595,  S.  C.  41 
N.  W.  R.  397;  Siedenbach  v.  Riley, 
111  N.  Y.  560,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  275; 
Empire  State  Type  Co.  v.  Grant,  114 
N.Y.  40,  S.  C.  21 N.  E.  R.  49 ;  Lobdell  r. 
Horton,  71  Mich.  681,  S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R. 
28;  Streets.  Griffiths,  50  N.  J.  L.  656, 
S.  C.  14  Atl.  R.  898 ;  Wheeler  v.  Laird, 
147  Mass.  421,  S.  C.  18  N.  E.  R.  212; 
Woods  V.  Montovallo,  etc.,  Co.,  84 
Ala.  560,  S.C.  5  Am.  St.  R.  .393 ;  Slattery 
V.  Donnelly.l  N.Dak.  264,  S.C.  47  N.AV. 
R.  375;  Peet  v.  Dakota,  etc.,  Co.  (S. 
Dak.),  47  N.  W.  R.  532 ;  Wood  on  Lim- 
itations, §  258.  Compare  De  Graw  v. 
Prior,  60  Mo.  56  ;  Turner  v.  Baker,  64 
Mo.  218;  Bowie  v.  Brahe,  3  Duer  (N. 
Y.),  35.     Ouster  is  a  question  for  the 


jury.  Taylor  v.  Hill,  10  Leigh  (Va.), 
457;  Cummings  i'.  Wyman,  10  Mass. 
464;  Clark  v.  Crego,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
599;  Harmon  v.  James,  7  Sm.  &  M. 
(Miss.)  Ill;  Robidoux  u.  Cassilegi,  10 
Mo.  App.  516;  Carpentier  v.  Menden- 
hall,  28  Cal.  484.  Compare  Newmar- 
ket Mfg.  Co.  V.  Pendergast,  24  N.  H. 
54. 

^Johnson  v.  Turner  (Md.),  22  Atl. 
Rep.  1103 ;  Lyles  v.  Roach,  30  So.  Car. 
291,  S.  C.  9  S.  E.  R.  334;  Magee  r. 
Magee,  37  Miss.  138;  Blackman  r. 
Welsh,  44  Mo.  41 ;  Carbrey  v.  Willis, 
7  Allen  (Mass.),  364;  Eaton  v.  Jacobs, 
52  Me.  445;  AVigginsr.  Holley,  11  Ind. 
2 ;  Steffy  v.  Carpenter,  37  Pa.  St.  41 ; 
State  V.  Cardelli,  19  Nev.  319,  S.  C.  10 
Pac.  R.  433;  Deerfield  c.  Conn.  River 
R.  R.  Co.,  144  Mass.  325,  S.  C.  11  N. 
E.  R.  105;  Ivey  v.  Williams,  78  Tex. 
685,  S.  C.  15S.W.  R.  163. 

3  Argotsinger  v.  Vines,  82  N.  Y.  308; 
Nearhoff  v.  Addleman,  31  Pa.  St.  279; 
Cornelius  r.  Giberson,  25  N.J.  L.  1, 
31.  See,  also,  Kitts  v.  Wilson,  130 
Ind.  492,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  401. 

*  Woodward  r.  Blanchard,  16  111. 
424 ;  Shackelford  v.  Bailey,  35  111.  387  ; 
Turner  i'.  Hall,  60  Mo.  271. 

5  Gaines  r.  Saunders,  87  Mo.  557; 
Woodward  v.  Blanchard,  16  111.  424. 


552 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§441 


has  also  been  held  that  the  question  as  to  whether  a  title  is 
good  and  free  from  material  defects  is  a  question  of  law.^ 


§  441.  Probable  cause. — The  question  of  probable  cause  is 
often  called  a  question  of  law,  and  it  is  properly  so  called  where 
the  facts  are  ascertained  or  undisputed,^  but,  generally,  it  is, 
perhaps,  more  properly  denominated  a  mixed  question  of  law 
and  fact.  Although  some  courts  use  one  of  these  terms  and 
some  the  other,  they  do  not  differ  materially  as  to  the  law. 
The  difference  is  one  of  expression  or  nomenclature  rather  than 
substance.  Where  there  is  a  controversy  as  to  the  facts,  it  is 
for  the  jury  to  determine  what  facts  are  proved  by  the  evidence 
and  for  the  court  to  instruct  them  as  to  what  is  necessary  in 
law  to  constitute  probable  cause,  which  is  usually  done  by  hy- 
pothetical instructions  upon  the  state  of  facts  claimed  by  each 
party  within  the  evidence,  the  court  stating  whether,  if  proved, 
they  do  or  do  not  constitute  or  show  probable  cause. ^     In  a  few 


See,  also,  Merrill  v.  Hilliard,  59  N.  H. 
481;  Powell  v.  Davis,  19  Tex.  380. 

'  Mead  v.  Altgeld,  136  111.  298,  S.  C. 
26  N.  E.  R.  388 ;  Parmly  v.  Head,  33 
111.  App.  134. 

*  Gilbertson  v.  Fuller,  40  Minn.  413, 
S.  C.  42  N.  W.  Rep.  203 ;  Moore  v. 
Northern  Pac,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Minn. 
147,  S.  C.  33  N.  W.  Rep.  334 ;  Stone 
V.  Crocker,  24  Pick.  (Mass.)  81 ;  Mc- 
Donald V.  Atlantic  &  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
(Ariz.),  21  Pac.  Rep.  338;  Grant  v. 
Moore,  29  Cal.  644 ;  Gurley  v.  Tomkins, 
17  Colo.  437,  S.  C.  30  Pac.  Rep.  344; 
Besson  v.  Southard,  10  N.  Y.  236 ;  Far- 
rell  V.  Friedlander,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
254;  Cottrell  v.  Cottrell,  126  Ind.  181, 
S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  905;  McNulty  v. 
Walker,  64  Miss.  198,  S.  C.  1  So.  R. 
55;  Donnelly  v.  Daggett,  145  Mass. 
314,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  161  ;  Moak's  Un- 
derbill on  Torts,  166 ;  Prof.  Jury  Trials, 
§271. 

'  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Weddle,  100 
Ind.  138;  Stewart  r.  Sonneborn,  98U. 


S.  187;  Besson  V.  Southard,  ION.  Y. 
236;  Masten  v.  Deyo,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
424 ;  Bulkeley  v.  Smith,  2  Duer  (N. Y.) , 
261 ;  Pangburn^j.  Bull,  1  Wend.(N.Y.) 
345;  Sweeney  v.  Perney,  40  Kan.  102, 
S.  C.  19  Pac.  R.  328 ;  Bell  v.  Matthews, 
37  Kan.  686;  Glasgow  v.  Owen,  69 
Texas,  167,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  527;  Cole 
V.  Curtis,  16  Minn.  182;  Potter  v.  Seale, 
8  Cal.  217;  Grant  v.  Moore,  29  Cal. 
644;  Meysenberg  v.  Engelke,  18  Mo. 
App.  346 ;  Israel  v.  Brooks,  23  111.  526 ; 
Driggs  V.  Burton,  44  Vt.  124;  John- 
stone V.  Sutton,  1  T.  R.  545 ;  Caldwell 
V.  Bennett,  22  So.  Car.  1 ;  Johnson  v. 
Miller,  82  Iowa,  693,  S.  C.  47  N.  W.  R. 
903 ;  Hooper  v.  Vernon,  74  Md.  136,  S. 
C.  21  Atl.  R.  556;  Joiner  v.  Ocean 
Steamship  Co.,  86  Ga.  238,  S.  C.  12  S.  E. 
R.  361;  Lytton  v.  Baird,  95  Ind.  349; 
Humphries  v.  Parker,  52  Me.  502; 
Pullen  V.  Glidden,  68  Me.  559;  Blach- 
ford  V.  Dod,  2  B.  &  Ad.  179;  Panton 
V.  Williams,  1  G.  &  D.  504. 


§442 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AN'D    FACT. 


553 


cases,  however,  some  of  the  courts  have  left  the  entire  question 
to  the  jury  upon  general  instructions.^ 

§  442.  Reasonable  time. — The  term  "reasonable  time"  is  a 
relative  one,  and  wiiat  constitutes  reasonable  time  for  doing  an 
act  in  any  particular  case  must  depend  largely  upon  the  nature 
and  peculiar  circumstances  of  that  case.  For  this  reason,  per- 
haps, there  is  much  conflict  among  the  authorities  as  to 
when  it  is  a  question  of  law'*  for  the  court  and  when  it  is  a 
question  of  fact'^  or  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact*  for  the 
jury.  So  far  as  it  is  practicable  to  formulate  any  general 
rule  upon  the  subject,  the  correct  rule,  as  it  seems  to  us,  may 
be  stated  as  follows:  Where  the  facts  are  undisputed  and  dif- 
ferent inferences  can  not  reasonably  be  drawn  from  them,  the 
question  is  one  of  law  for  the  court;^  but  if  the  facts  are  dis- 
puted, especially  where  they  are  numerous  and  complicated, 
or  if  more  than  one  reasonable  inference  may  be  drawn  from 
them,  and  there  is  no  fixed  rule  established  by  custom  or  law 
by  which  the  judge  can  determine  the  question  without  relying 


'  See  Anderson  v.  Keller,  67  Ga.  58 ; 
Cochran  v.  Toher,  14  Minn.  385,  391 ; 
Green  v.  Cochran,  43  la.  544 ;  Calla- 
han V.  Caffarata,  39  Mo.  136;  Heyne 
V.  Blair,  62  N.  Y.  19;  Beckwith  v. 
Philby,  6  Barn.  &  Cres.  635. 

"  See  Lockwood  v.  Thorne,  11  N.  Y. 
170;  Sice  v.  Cunningham,  1  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  397;  Reilly  v.  Dodge,  131  N.  Y. 
153,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  1011 ;  Bennett 
V.  Lyconing,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 
274;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boyce, 
73  111.  510;  Greene  v.  Dingley,  24  Me. 
181 ;  Howe  v.  Huntington,  15  Me.  350; 
Ellis  V.  Paige,  1  Pick.  (:Mass.)  43; 
Wiggins  V.  Burkham,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
129 ;  Toland  v.  Sprague,  12  Pet.  (U.  S.) 
300;  Hoskin  v.  Fisher,  125  U.  S.  217; 
Hughes  V.  Pipkin,  Phill.  L.  (N.  Car.) 
4 ;  Doe  v.  Spence,  6  East,  120 ;  Doe  v. 
Snowdon,  2  W.  Bl.  1224;  Startup  v. 
MacDonald,  6  Man.  &  G.593;  Schei- 
bel  V.  Fairbain,  1  Bos.  &  Pul.  388. 


3  See  Joy  v.  Sears,  9  Pick.  (Mass.)  4  ; 
Gilhooly  r.  N.  Y.,  etc..  Navigation  Co., 
1  Daly  (N.  Y.),  197 ;  Derosia  v.  Win- 
ona, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133; 
Kennedy  v.  Gibbs,  15  111.  406;  Turner 
V.  City  of  Newburgh,  109  N.  Y.  301,  306. 

*See  Bacon  i\  Harris,  15  R.  I.  599, 
S.  C.  10  Atl.  R.  647 ;  Roth  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  548,  S.  C.  90 
Am.  Dec.  736;  Bassenhorst  v.  Wilby, 
45  Ohio  St.  333;  Field  v.  Nickerson, 
13  Mass.  131;  Chamberlin  v.  Fuller, 
59  Vt.  247,  S.  C.  9  Atl.  R.  832;  Wig- 
gins V.  Burkham,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  129; 
Davis  r.  Capper,  10  B.  &  C.  28. 

*  Wright  V.  Bank  of  Metropolis,  110 
N.  Y.  237,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  356 ;  Colt 
V.  Owens,  90  N.  Y.  368;  Hedges  r. 
Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  223; 
Aymar  v.  Beers,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  705, 
S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  538,  and  note;  Cook- 
ingham  v.  Dusa,  41  Kan.  229,  S.  C.  21 
Pac.  R.  95. 


554  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  442 

merely  on  his  individual  notions,  it  is  one  of  fact,  or  mixed 
law  and  fact  for  the  jury  to  determine.^  In  accordance  with 
the  first  proposition  in  the  rule  just  stated  it  has  been  held 
that,  where  the  facts  are  undisputed,  what  is  a  reasonable  time 
within  which  the  consignee  must  remove  goods  consigned  to 
him  in  order  to  prevent  the  liability  of  the  carrier  from  becom- 
ing that  of  a  warehouseman  instead  of  an  insurer  is  a  question 
of  law  for  the  court,  and  that  three  days  is  an  unreasonable 
time.^  So,  where  an  obstruction  was  placed  in  a  street  by  a 
wrong-doer  at  night  and  an  injury  was  received  by  a  traveler 
in  falling  over  it  an  hour  and  three-quarters  afterwards,  it  was 
held  that  a  reasonable  time  had  not  elapsed  to  charge  the  city 
with  constructive  notice,  and  the  judgment  against  the  city 
was  reversed  by  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  ground  that  the  ver- 
dict was  not  sustained  by  the  evidence.^  And  in  many  other 
cases  in  which  the  facts  were  so  clearly  proved  and  the  time  so 
long  or  so  short  that  but  one  reasonable  inference  could  be 
drawn  the  court  decided  the  matter  as  one  of  law.*  So,  where 
the  facts  are  undisputed,  what  is  a  reasonable  time  for  giving 
notice  of  the  dishonor  of  a  negotiable  instrument  is  fixed  by 
the  law  merchant  and  is,  therefore,  as  a  general  rule,  a  ques- 
tion of  law  for  the  court. '^     The  same  has  been  held  in  regard 

'  Luckhart  v.  Ogden,  30  Cal.  548,  558 ;  Y.  Cent.  E.  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  184,  187 ; 

Cochran  v.  Toher,  14  Minn.  385,  389;  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344,  347; 

Magee  v.  Carmack,  13  111.  289,  291;  Hutch.  Carr.,  §376.     Compare  Scheu 

Du  Laurans  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y.  510,  S.  C.  22  N. 

15  Minn.  49;    Sproull  v.  Seay,  76  Ga.  E.  R.  1073. 

27 ;  Hoxie  v.  liams,  26  Neb.  616,  S.  C.  ^  City  of  Warsaw  v.  Dunlap,  112  Ind. 

42  N.  W.  R.  711 ;  State  v.  Hall,  45  Mo.  576. 

App.  298;  Thompson  v.  Douglass,  35  *See  Cookingham  v.  Dusa,  41  Kan. 
W.  Va.  337,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  Rep.  1015;  229,  S.  C.  21  Pac.  Rep.  95;  Green  v. 
Searcy  r.  Hunter,  81  Texas,  644,  S.  C.  Wright,  36  Mo.  App.  298;  Druse  v. 
26  Am.  St.  R.  837 ;  Sullivan  v.  N.  Y.,  Wheeler,  26  Mich.  189 ;  Lamb  v.  Gam- 
ete, Co.,  119  N.  Y.  348,  S.  C.  23  N.  E.  den,  2  Daly  (N.Y.),  454,  474;  Nudd  v. 
R.  820;  Meadv.  Parker,  111  N.  Y.  259,  Wells,  11  Wis.  407;  Lancaster  Bank 
262;  note  to  Aymar  v.  Beers,  17  Am.  v.  Woodward,  18  Pa.  St.  357;  Nunez 
Dec.  5.38.            '  v.  Dautel,  19  Wall.  (TJ.  S.)  560,  563. 

*  Columbus  &  W.  R.  R. Co.  ij.Ludden,  'Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Lawrence,  1 

89  Ala.  612,  S.  C.  7  So.  R.  471,  S.  C.  31  Pet.  (U.  S.)  578;    Peabody  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Cent.  L.  J.  89.    See,  also.  Roth  v.  Rail-  Wilson,  29  W.  Va.  528,  S.  C.  2  S.  E.  R. 

road  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  548;    Burnell  ?;.  N.  888;  Hussey  v.  Freeman,  10  Mass.  84; 


§  442 


QUESTIONS    OK    LAW    AND    FACT. 


555 


to  presenting  a  check,  draft  or  note  for  acceptance  or  payment,' 
but  the  contrary  has  also  been  liold.^  In  accordance  with  the 
second  proposition  stated  in  our  general  rule,  it  has  been  held 
that  whether  delay  in  receiving  logs  delivered  at  a  certain  place 
to  be  loaded  on  the  cars  was  reasonable  is  a  question  for  the 
jury;^  that  whether  delay  in  giving  notice  of  defects  in  ma- 
chinery was  unreasonable  is  a  question  for  the  jury;*  and  that 
what  is  a  reasonable  time  for  the  owner  of  lands  to  perfect  his 
title,  so  as  to  make  it  marketable  and  entitle  a  broker  to  com- 
mission, is  likewise  one  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  determine  under 
all  the  circumstances  in  evidence.^  It  has  also  been  held  that 
what  is  a  reasonable  time  for  making  proof  of  loss  of  insured 
property  where  the  facts  are  not  clearly  established,^  for  mak- 
ing and  delivering  a  schedule  by  one  claiming  an  exemption," 
for  remedying  defects  in  machinery  by  an  employer  who  has 
promised  his  employe  to  remedy  them,*^  for  returning  a  horse 


Brenzer  v.  Wightman,  7  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  264;  Hadduck  v.  Murray,  1  N. 
H.  140,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Dec.  43;  Marks  v. 
Boone,  24  Fla.  177,  S.  C.  4  So.  R.  532; 
Tindal  v.  Brown,  1  T,  R.  167;  Carrol 
V.  Upton,  3  N.  Y.  272;  Bryden  r.  Bry- 
den,  11  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  187;  Tiedeman 
on  Comraerc.  Paper,  §  337  ;  Cliitty  on 
Bills,  366.  Compare  Bank  of  Com- 
merce V.  Chambers,  14  Mo.  App.  152; 
Hopes  V.  Alder,  6  East,  16. 

1  Parker  v.  Reddick,  65  Miss.  242,  S. 
C.  7  Am.  St.  R.  646 ;  Baskerville  v.  Har- 
ris, 41  Miss.  535;  Mohawk  Bank  v. 
Broderick,  10  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  304; 
Aymar  v.  Beers,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  705, 
S.  C.  17  Am.  Dec.  538,  and  note ;  Dyas 
V.  Hanson,  14  Mo.  App.  363;  Prescott 
Bank  r.  Caverly,  7  Gray  (Mass.),  217 ; 
Boyleson  Bills,  163  ;  Hadduck  r.  Mur- 
ray, 1  N.  H.  140,  S.  C.  8  Am.  Dec.  43; 
Durnell  v.  Sowden,  5  Utah,  216,  S.  C. 
14  Pac.  R.  334. 

*Mellish  V.  Rawdon,  9  Bing.  416; 
Muilman  r.  D'Eguino,  2  H.  Bl.  565; 
Mullick  V.  Radakissen,  28  Eng.  L.  & 
Eq.  86;  AVallace  v.  Agry,  4  Mason  (U. 


S.),  336;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Allen,  11 
Mich.  501.  The  rule  seems  to  be  that 
when  the  facts  are  plain,  simple  and 
undisputed  the  question  is  one  of  law 
for  the  court,  but  where  they  are  con- 
tradictory and  complicated  it  is  for 
the  jury.  Tiedeman  on  Commercial 
Paper,  §  216 ;  1  Parson  on  Notes  and 
Bills,  340;  1  Dan.  Negot.  Instr.,  §406; 
Bassenhorst  v.  Wilby,  45  Ohio  St.  333. 

^  Boyington  v.  Sweeney, 77  Wis.  55,  S. 
C.  45  N.  W.  R.  938.  See,  also.Wilder  r. 
Sprague,  50  Me.  354;  Roberts  r.  Ma- 
zeppa  Mill  Co.,  30  Minn.  413 ;  Kipp  v. 
Wiles,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  585;  Cocker 
V.  Franklin,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Sumn.  (U.S.) 
530. 

*Fearl  r.  Hanna,  129  Pa.  St.  588,  S. 
C.  18  Atl.  R.  556. 

*  Dent  V.  Powell,  80  la.  456,  S.  C.  4.5 
N.  AV.  R.  772. 

*  Springfield  F.  c<:  M.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Brown,  128  Pa.  St.  392,  S.  C.  18  Atl. 
R.  396. 

'  Johnston  r.Willey,  21  111.  App.  354. 

*  Stephenson  i\  Duncan,  73  Wis.  404, 
S.  C.  41  N.  W.  R.  337. 


556 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§443 


discovered  to  be  unsound,^  for  the  disaffirmance  of  a  contract 
by  an  infant  after  coming  of  age,^  for  the  disaffirmance  of  the 
unauthorized  acts  of  an  agent,^  for  the  return  of  counterfeit 
money  or  forged  paper,*  for  completing  repairs  by  a  landlord,^ 
and  for  testing  a  machine,*^  should  be  left  to  the  jury  to  deter- 
mine under  the  circumstances  of  each  case.  It  has  been  held 
to  be  a  question  of  law  for  the  court  to  determine  what  is  a  rea- 
sonable time  in  which  to  object  to  an  account  rendered  so  as 
to  prevent  it  from  becoming  an  account  stated,  where  the  facts 
are  undisputed,"^  but  in  other  cases  it  has  been  held  to  be  a 
question  of  fact.^ 

§  443.  Waiver  and  abandonment. — Waiver  is  often  a  ques- 
tion of  intent,  and  where  such  is  the  case  it  is  generally  a 
question  of  fact,  or  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact  for  the 
jury.^     Thus,  whether  a  telegraph  company  by  orally  receiv- 


>  Gridley  v.  Globe  Tobacco  Co.,  71 
Mich.528,S.0.39  N.W.R.754.  But  it  has 
been  held  that  the  time  during  which  a 
vendee  retains  a  chattel  may  be  so  long 
that,  if  the  delay  is  unexplained,  the 
court  can  pronounce  it  unreasonable 
as  matter  of  law,  so  that  he  would  not 
be  entitled  to  rescind  the  contract  of 
sale  for  breach  of  warranty.  Johnson 
V.Whitman,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  100 ; 
Cookingham  v.  Dusa,  41  Kan.  229,  S.C. 
21  Pac.  R.  95.  In  such  a  case  there  can 
be  but  one  reasonable  inference,  and  it 
therefore  falls  within  our  rule,  mak- 
ing it  a  question  for  the  court.  See, 
also,  and  compare  Gatling  v.  Newell, 
9  Ind.  572 ;  Holbrook  v.  Burt,  22  Pick. 
(Mass.)  546;  Kingsley  v.  Wallis,  14 
Me.  57 ;  Parker  v.  Palmer,  4  Barn.  & 
Aid.  387. 

^  Scott  V.  Buchanan,  11  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  468;  Wiley  v.  Wilson,  77  Ind. 
596.  See,  also,  Searcy  v.  Hunter,  81 
Tex.  644,  S.  C.  26  Am.  St.  R.  837. 

'Porter  v.  Patterson,  15  Pa.  St.  229; 
Minor  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet.  (U. 
S.)  46;    Minnesota  Linseed  Oil  Co.  v. 


Montague,  59  la.  448 ;  Parkhill  v.  Im- 
lay,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  431;  Lanfear  v. 
Sumner,  17  Mass.  110. 

*  Union  Nat.  Bank  v.  Baldenwick, 
45  111.  375  ;  Boyd  v.  Mexico  So.  Bank, 
67  Mo.  537 ;  Burrill  t^.Watertown  Bank, 
51  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  105. 

5  Young  V.  Burhans,  80  Wis.  438,  S. 
C.  50  N.  W.  R.  343. 

« Cook  V.  Tavener,  41  111.  App.  642. 

'  Fleischner  v.  Kubli,  20  Ore.  328,  S.  ■ 
C.  25  Pac.  R.  1086;  Oil  Co.  v.  Van  Et- 
ten,  107  U.S.  325 ;  Lockwood  y.Thorne, 
11  N.  Y.  170,  and  compare  Lockwood 
V.  Thorne,  18  N.  Y.  285. 

8  Austin  V.  Ricker,  61  N.  H.  97 ;  Peter 
V.  Thickstun,  51  Mich.  590. 

'  Traynor  V.Johnson,!  Head.  (Tenn.) 
51 ;  Fitch  v.  Woodruff  Iron  Works,  29 
Conn.  82 ;  Young  y.  Arntze,  86  Ala. 116, 
S.  C.  5  So.  R.  253 ;  Strain  v.  Pauley  Jail, 
etc.,Co.,80Tex.622,  S.C.16S.W.R.625; 
Wing  V.  Thompson,  78  Wis.  256,  S.  C. 
47N.  W.  R.  606;  Goldenberg  v.  Blake, 
145  Mass.  354,  S.  C.  14  N.  E.  R.  171 ; 
Eagle  &  P.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  89  Ga. 
218,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  482 ;  International 


§4^3 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


557 


ing  and  delivering  market  quotations,  where  the  exigencies  of 
business  do  not  give  time  to  write  tliem,  intends  to  waive 
stipulations  in  its  printed  blanks  is  a  question  for  the  jury.* 
So,  it  is  for  the  jury  to  determine,  where  the  evidence  and  in- 
ferences are  conflicting,  whether  conditions  in  an  insurance 
policy  have  been  waived.^  And  it  is  generally  for  the  jury  to 
determine  in  such  cases  whether  there  is  a  waiver  of  perform- 
ance of  any  of  the  conditions  of  any  contract.'^  But  wliere 
there  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  facts  and  inference  the  question 
is  one  of  law  for  the  court. ^  So,  whether  a  party  has  waived 
defects  in  a  notice  or  summons  by  appearing  and  contesting 
the  case  on  its  merits,**  or  has  waived  objections  by  failing  to 
make  them  at  the  proper  time,^  or  by  his  admissions  and  con- 
duct in  court  has  waived  rights  upon  which  he  might  other- 


Fair,  etc.,  Ass'n  r. Walker,  88  Mich.  62, 
S.  C.  49  N.  W.  R.  1086 ;  Martin  v.  Cali- 
fornia, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal.  326,  S. 
C.  29  Pac.  R.  645;  North  Chicago  St. 
R'y  Co.  V.  Williams,  140  111.  275,  S.  C. 
29  N.  E.  R.  672;  Sweesey  v.  Durnall, 
23  Neb.  531,  S.  C.  37  N.  W.  R.  459. 

'  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.  f .  Stevenson, 
128  Pa.  St.  442,  S.  C.  5  L.  R.  A.  515,  S. 
C.  18  Atl.  R.  441. 

*  Peoples'  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pulver, 
127  111.  246,  S.  C.  20  N.  E.  R.  18 ;  Drake 
V.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  3  Grant  Cas. 
(Pa.)  325;  Franklin  Ins.  Co.  v.  Upde- 
graff,  43  Pa.  St.  350 ;  Coursin  v.  Penna. 
Ins.  Co.,  46  Pa.  St.  323;  Buckley  v. 
Garrett,  47  Pa.  St.  204 ;  Phoenix  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Munday,  5  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  547; 
Bishop  V.  Agricultural  Ins.  Co.,  130 
N.  Y.  488,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  844.  Com- 
pare Ripley  v.  ^tna  Ins.  Co.,  30  N.  Y. 
136. 

'  Rice  V.  Brown,  81  Me.  56,  S.  C.  16 
Atl.  R.  334;  Chapman  v.  Colby,  47 
Mich.  46 ;  Spaulding  v.  Hallenbeck,  39 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  79  (under  proper  in- 
structions) ;  Moore  v.  Carter,  146  Pa. 
St.  492,  S.  C.  23  Atl.  R.  243. 

*  New  Orleans   Ins.   Ass'n   v.   Mat- 


thews, 65  Miss.  301,  S.  C.  4  So.  R.  62; 
Spring  Garden,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Evans, 
9  Md.  1 ;  Mowry  v.  Wood,  12  Wis.  414 ; 
Lee  V.  Hassett,  39  Mo.  App.  67. 

^  Knox  i\  Summers,  3  Cranch  (U. 
S.) ,  496 ;  Gracie  v.  Palraer,8  Wheat.  (U. 
S.)  699 ;  Brayton  v.  Freese,  1  Ind.  121 ; 
Walker  tJ.City  of  Aurora,  140  111.  402,  S. 
C.  29  N.  E.  R.  741 ;  Murphy  v.  City  of 
Peoria,  119  111.  509,  S.  C.  9  N.  E.  R. 
895;  McLaurin  2).  Baum  (Miss.),  12  So. 
R.  594.  See  Appearance,  Vol.  II, 
Ch.  1. 

« Warren  v.  Glynn,  37  N.  H.  340; 
Stanley  v.  Bank,  23  Ala.  652;  Tarbell 
V.  Royal  Exchange,  etc.,  Co.,  110  N. 
Y.  170,  S.  C.  6  Am.  St.  R.  350;  Power 
V.  Bowdle  (N.  Dak.),  54  N.  W.  R.  404; 
Andrews  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co. 
(Ala.),  12  So.  R.  432;  Perine  v.  For- 
bush,  97  Cal.  305,  S.  C.  32  Pac.  R.  226 ; 
Scott  r.  People,  142  111.  291,  S.  C.  33 
N.  E.  R.  180;  Evanston  r.  Gunn,  99  U. 
S.  660;  Indianapolis,  D.  <k  W.  R'y  Co. 
V.  Sands,  133  Ind.  433,  S.  C.  32  N.  E. 
R.  722,  and  illustrations  given  in  opin- 
ion on  page  723;  Dolan  v.  State,  122 
Ind.  141;  Dockerty  r.  Hutson,  125 
Ind.  102.     And  see  Elliott's  Appellate 


558  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  444 

wise  insist,  are  generally  questions  of  law  for  the  court. ^  Upon 
undisputed  facts  and  inferences  the  question  of  abandonment 
is  also  for  the  court, "-^  but  in  other  cases  it  is  a  question  for  the 
jury  to  determine  as  one  of  intention.^  Thus,  it  has  been  held 
that  where  an  officer  is  suspended,  but  not  removed,  it  should 
be  left  to  the  jury  to  determine  as  a  matter  of  fact  whether  his 
acceptance  of  other  employment  and  compensation  therefor 
amounts  to  an  abandonment  of  the  office  and  a  waiver  of  the 
salary  to  which  he  would  otherwise  be  entitled  during  the 
period  of  suspension.* 

§  444.  Miscellaneous  questions.~The  following  questions 
have  been  held  questions  of  fact,  or  mixed  questions  of  law  and 
fact  for  the  jury:  Whether  a  person  accused  of  murder  was 
so  drunk  as  to  be  incapable  of  forming  a  design  or  intent;^ 
whether  a  testator  had  sufficient  mental  capacity  to  make  a 
will;^  whether  a  person  was  insane  or  not;'  whether  a  person 
who  killed  another  had  reason  to  believe  he  was  in  imminent 
danger  of  death  or  great  bodily  harm;^  whether  due  diligence 
was  used  by  railroad  employes  in  extinguishing  a  fire;^  whether 

Proc,  §  674,  et  seg.,  where  many  other  (S.  Dak.),  47  N.  W.  R.  290;    Parkins 

authorities  are  cited.  v.  Dunham,  3  Strobh.  L.  (S.  Car.)  224 ; 

'  Long  V.  Yalleau  (la.),  55  N  W.  R.  Avery  v.  demons,  18  Conn.  306;  Tay- 

31;    BoUing  v.  Pace  (Ala.),  12  So.  R.  lor  v.  Middleton,  67   Cal.  656.     See, 

796 ;    Webber   v.    Houston,   6    Yerg.  also,  §  435,  ante. 

(Tenn.)   314;    Preston  v.   Simons,   1  *  Wardlaw  v.  Mayor,  137  N.  Y.  194. 

Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.)  262;  Hartz  v.  Com-  Compare  State  v.  Seay,  64  Mo.  89. 

monwealth,  1  Grant  Cas.   (Pa.)  359;  ^King  v.  State,  90  Ala.  612,  S.  C.  8 

Kern  v.  Wvatt  (Va.) ,  17  N.  E.  R.  549 ;  So.  R.  856. 

Eckert  v.  Binkley  (Ind.),  33  N.  E.  R.  «Trezevant  v.  Rains,  85  Texas,  329, 

619 ;  Milbank  v.  .Jones,  22  N.Y.  S.  525 ;  S.  C.  19  S.  W.  Rep.  567  ;  Chrisman  v. 

Dale  V.  Radcliffe,  25  Barb.  (N.Y.)  3.33 ;  Chrisman,  16  Ore.  127,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R. 

Belknap  v.  Godfrey,  22  Vt.  288 ;    Hig-  6 ;  Best?'.  Best  (Ky.),  11  S.  W.  R.  810. 

ley  V.  Lant,  3  Mich.  612;    Pulling  v.  'Fisher  v.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  502, 

Supervisors,  3  Wis.  337;    Ransom  v.  S.  C.  18  S.  W.  R.  90. 

City  of  New  York,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  581.  »  State  v.  Scheele,  57  Conn.  307,  S. 

»  Henry  v.  Bassett,  75  Mo.  89 ;  White  C.  18  Atl.  R.  256. 

V.  Wright,  16  Mo.  App.  551 ;  Chouteau  »  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Platzer, 

V.  .Jupiter  Iron  Works,  83   Mo.   73;  23  Tex.  117,  S.  C.  11  S.  W.  R.  160,  S. 

Dula  V.  Cowles,  7  Jones  L.  (N.  Car.),  C.  3  L.  R.  A.  639.    See,  also,  Delaware 

290;  Thornburgh  v.  Mastin,  93  N.  Car.  &  H.  Canal  Co.  v.  Goldstein,  125  Pa. 

258;  Mims  v.  Lockett,  23  Ga.  2.37.  St.  246,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  442;  Kelly  v. 

'  Marshall  v.  Harney  Peak,  etc.,  Co.  Duffy  (Pa.),  11  Atl.  R.  244. 


§444 


QUESTIONS    OF    LAW    AND    FACT. 


559 


the  use  of  water  from  a  spring,  which  is  alleged  to  have  diverted 
it  from  its  channel/  or  by  an  u])|)er  mill  owner,  alleged  to  have 
obstructed  its  natural  flow  to  a  lower  mill,'^  is  reasonable  or 
not;  questions  of  value, ^  and  questions  of  the  amount  of  dam- 
ages.* The  following  questions  have  been  held  to  be  questions 
of  law  for  the  court:  Whether  delay  in  applying  for  the  re- 
issue of  a  patent  has  been  reasonable;''  whether  what  was  said 
by  the  parties  constituted  a  contract  or  not,  where  there  was 
no  dispute  as  to  the  facts  and  inferences;^  whether,  where  the 
facts  were  undisputed,  there  was  sufficient  evidence  of  delivery 
and  acceptance  to  take  the  contract  out  of  the  statute  of  frauds;'' 


^Colrick  V.   Swinburne,   105  N.  Y. 

503,  S.  C.  12  N.  E.  R.  427. 

"  Caldwell  v.  Sanderson,  69  Wis.  52, 
S.  C.  28  N.W.  R.  232.  See,  also,  Hazel- 
tine  V.  Case,  46  Wis.  391 ;  Kemmerer 
V.  Edelman,  23  Pa.  St.  143. 

'Sergeant  v.  Dwyer,  44  Minn.  309, 
S.  C.46N.W.R.444;  Becker  r.Hecker, 
9  Ind.  497 ;  Keystone  Brewing  Co.  v. 
Walker  (Pa.),  11  Atl.  R.  650;  Boody 
V.  Watson,  64  N.  H.  162,  S.  C.  9  Atl. 
R.  794,  812. 

*  Louisville,  N.  O.  &  T.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Mask,  64  Miss.  738,  S.  C.  2  So.  R.  360; 
Schlitz  Brewing  Co.  v.  McCann,  118 
Pa.  St.  314,  S.  C.  12  Atl.  R.  445;  Par- 
sons V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 
286,  S.  C.  6  S.  W.  R.  464;  Haldeman 
V.  Berry,  74  Mich.  424,  S.  C.  42  N.  W. 
R.  57;  Brunswig  v.  White,  70  Texas, 

504,  S.  C.  8  S.  AV.  R.  85.  So,  whether 
any  damage  resulted  from  an  act.  Mc- 
Gregor V.  Board,  107  N.  Y.  511,  S.  C. 
14  N.  E.  R.  420;  Centralia  &  C.  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Brake  125  111.  393,  S.  C.  17  N.  E. 
R.  820 ;  Montgomery  v.  Townsend,  84 
Ala.  478,  S.  C.  4  So.  R.  780 ;  Brown  v. 
Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.,  6  Utah,  219,  S. 
C.  21  Pac.  R.  988.  But  the  measure  of 
damages,  that  is,  the  rule  for  deter- 
mining the  amount,  is  for  the  court. 
Mansfield  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  114 
N.  Y.  331,  S.  C.  21  N.  E.  R.  735 ;  Chris- 


tin  V.  Erwin,  125  111.  619,  S.  C.  17  N. 
E.  R.  707;  Wilburn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  36  Mo.  App.  203. 

*  Hoskin  v.  Fisher,  125  U.  S.  217. 

«  Royal  Ins.  Co.  v.  Beatty,  119  Pa.  St. 
6,  S.  C.  12  Atl.  R.  607.  Especially  is 
this  true  where  writings  are  to  be  con- 
strued. Eyser  v.Weissgerber,  2  Iowa, 
463;  Lea  tJ.  Henry,  56  la.  662;  Ranney 
V.  Iligby,  5  Wis.  62;  Falls  Wire  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Broderick,  12  Mo.  App.  378; 
Goddard  v.  Foster,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
123.  But,  generally,  the  existence  of 
a  particular  verbal  contract  is,  of 
course,  a  question  for  the  jury.  1 
Thomp.  Tr.,  §1114;  19  Am.  &  V.ng. 
Encyc.  of  Law,  636 ;  Patten  r.  Pan- 
coast,  109  N.  Y.  625,  S.  C.  15  N.  E.  R. 
893 ;  Chadron  School  Dist.  v.  Foster, 
31  Neb.  501,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  Rep.  267; 
Roberts  v.  Bonaparte,  73  Md.  191,  S. 
C.  10  L.  R.  A.  689. 

'  Hinchman  r.  Lincoln,  124  U.  S.  38 ; 
Davis  V.  ^loore,  13  Me.  424.  See,  also, 
Fuller  V.  Bean,  34  N.  H.  290;  Terry  v. 
Wheeler,  25  N.  Y.  520.  But  when  the 
facts  are  disputed,  especially  if  the 
question  turns  upon  the  intent  of  the 
parties,  the  question  of  delivery  and 
acceptance  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 
statute  of  frauds,  or  constitute  a  com- 
pleted sale  and  pass  the  title  are  for 
the   jury   under   proper    instructions. 


560 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§444 


whether  an  alleged  custom  is  reasonable  and  valid ;^  and  whether 
a  purpresture  or  permanent  structure  in  a  street  is  a  nuisance 
per  se?  , 


Riddle  v.  Varnum,  20  Pick.  (Mass.) 
280;  Smith  v.  Dennie,  6  Pick.  (Mass.) 
262;  Houdlette  v.  Tallman,  14  Me. 
400;  Glass  v.  Gelvin,  80  Mo.  297; 
Fuller  V.  Bean,  34  N.  H.  290 ;  Draper 
V.  Jones,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  263;  De 
Bidder  v.  McKnight,  13  Johns.  (N.Y.) 
294;  Weld  v.  Came,  98  Mass.  152; 
Kelsea  v.  Haines,  41  N.  H.  246;  Rhea 
V.  Riner,  21  111.  526;  Chaplin  v.  Rog- 
ers, 1  East,  192;  Benj.  on  Sales  (3d 
ed.) ,  §  309.  So,  whether  or  not  a  deed 
has  been  delivered  is  a  question  for 
the  jury,  upon  disputed  facts,  under 
proper  instructions.  Hibberd  v. Smith, 


67  Cal.  547;  Dearmond  v.  Dearmond, 
10  Ind.  191 ;  Burke  v.  Adams,  80  Mo. 
504;  Hurlburt  v.  Wheeler,  40  N.  H. 
73 ;  Hannah  v.  Swarner,  8  Watts  (Pa.) , 
9,  S.  C.  34  Am.  Dec.  442;  Roll  v.  Rea, 
50  N.  J.  L.  264,  S.  C.  12  Atl.  R.  905. 

'  Chicago  Packing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tilton, 
87  111.  547 ;  Bourke  v.  James,  4  Mich. 
336. 

*  State  V.  Berdetta,  73  Ind.  185; 
Pettis  V.  Johnson,  56  Ind.  139.  But 
generally  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  an  obstruction  constitutes  a 
nuisance  is  for  the  jury.  Blanc  v. 
Klumpke,  29  Cal.  156. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF    COURT    BY    COMrUOMISE. 

§445.  Advising  a  compromise.  §449.  Consideration. 
440.  Matters  to  be  i'<jiisidered  in  ad-        4o0.  Negotiating  a  compromise, 
vising  a  compromise.  4ol.  Effect  of  a  compromise. 

447.  Authority  to  compromise.  452.  Abandonment  and  rescission. 

448.  Offer  to  compromise. 

§  445.  Advising  a  compromise. — The  topic  which  we  here 
consider  is  one  closely  allied  in  some  respects  to  legal  ethics, 
but  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  consider  it  from  the  ethical  side, 
although  it  can  not  be  considered  without  touching  that  side. 
It  is  often  expedient  as  well  as  just  to  advise  a  compromise 
and  thus  prevent  litigation,  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  put  an  end 
to  it.  In  many  instances  a  fair  compromise  is  preferable  to  a 
contest.  There  are  many  cases  where  other  things  than  pe- 
cuniary loss  or  gain  should  receive  consideration  and  be  given 
controlling  influence.  Where  the  peace  of  families  is  likely  to 
be  imperilled  a  compromise  should  be  brought  about  if  it  can 
be  done  without  a  sacrifice  greater  than  justice  will  permit. 
Nor  is  the  probability  of  a  strife  leading  to  violence  to  be  left 
•unconsidered.  The  interests  of  the  client  are  always  and 
everywhere  the  chief  consideration,  and  the  conscientious  ad- 
vocate will  not  sacrifice  or  yield  them  to  promote  his  own  in- 
terests. He  will  not,  on  the  one  hand,  allow  the  hope  of  dis- 
tinguishing himself  in  court  to  influence  his  course,  nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  will  he  permit  a  desire  to  secure  the  reputation 
of  a  lawyer,  "who  better  loves  peace  and  compromises  than 
glory,"  to  impel  him  to  advise  a  client  to  yield  what  in  justice 
ought  not  to  be  yielded.  While  it  is  true  that  a  lawyer's  first 
duty  is  to  his  client  yet  it  is  not  wrong  for  him  to  secure,  if  he 
can  do  so  without  a  breach  of  duty  or  a  betrayal  of  trust,  the 
reputation  of  "a  maker  of  compromises."  It  carries  us  but  a 
little  aside  from  our  direct  path  to  say  that  it  brings  business 

(501) 


562  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  446 

to  a  lawyer  to  have  it  known  that  he  advises  compromises 
rather  than  provokes  or  encourages  litigation,  for  such  a  law- 
yer gets  credit  for  honest  dealing  that  those  lawyers  who  never 
effect  compromises  do  not  obtain.  But  the  interests  of  the 
'.client  overshadow  all  other  considerations,  and  the  lawyer 
jwho  advises  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  a  proposal  of  com- 
fpromise  must  know  his  client's  case  in  all  its  details,  and  care- 
I fully  weigh  the  probabilities  of  success  or  defeat.  It  has  been 
I  said,  that  "the  rights  of  society  are  so  strong  that  no  forensic 
contest  should  be  waged,  until  at  least  one  effort  to  compro- 
mise has  been  honestly  made,"  but  this  is  true  only  in  a  lim- 
ited sense,  if  true  at  all.  The  rights  of  society  can  not  extend 
so  far  as  to  require  the  sacrifice  of  private  rights  where  justice 
underlies  those  rights.  It  is  no  doubt  expedient  as  well  as 
just,  to  make  an  effort  to  compromise  in  many  cases  before  en- 
tering into  the  contest,  but  it  is  not  so  in  all.  It  is  well 
enough  always  to  act  upon  Shakespeare's  admonition  to  "beware 
of  an  entrance  into  a  quarrel,"  but  it  is  not  always  necessary  to 
seek  a  compromise  before  taking  action.  It  has  been  said  that 
'/'there  never  was  a  just  compromise,"^  and  this,  although 
somewhat  extravagant,  in  a  sense  is  true,  for  the  term  itself 
implies  that  one  of  the  parties  at  least  surrenders  some  part  of 
his  claim  or  something  to  which  he  is  justly  entitled;  yet  the 
advice  given  long  ago  still  remains  good  in  many  cases : 
"Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly  while  thou  art  in  the 
way  with  him."  Litigation  is  expensive,  and  it  is  often  ad- 
visable to  give  up  something  of  that  to  which  we  think  we  are 
justly  entitled  rather  than  to  incur  the  danger  of  losing  it  all 
or  having  the  better  part  of  it  eaten  up  by  litigation.  This  is 
especially  true  where  the  question  at  issue  is  a  doubtful  one, 
or  the  amount  involved  is  small  and  no  great  principle  is  at 
stake. 

§  446.   Matters  to  be  considered  in  advising  a  compromise. 

— Where  there  is  certainty  of  success  the  advocate  can  seldom 

'  On  the  other  hand  it  is  an  old  say-  represent  extreme  views  and  as  is 
ing:  "A  had  compromise  is  better  usually  the  case  both  views  are 
than  a  good  lawsuit."    These  sayings    wrong. 


§  446  SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF   COURT.  563 

rightfully  advise  a  compromise,  although,  for  ethical  reasons, 
he  may  sometimes  justly  do  so;  hut  it  is  not  often  in  litigated 
cases  that  the  advocate  can  he  assured  of  the  certainty  of  suc- 
cess. He  may  meet  unexpected  difiiculties,  and  unforeseen 
disasters  may  come  upon  him.  lie  must  rely  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  men  and  women  and  upon  the  judgments  of  jurors  or 
judges  who  are,  as  every  one  knows,  very  far  from  heing  in- 
fallihle.  Comparatively  few  cases  can  he  said  to  he  free  from 
doubt.  In  determining  whether  it  is  prudent  to  compromise 
a  case  and  yield  more  than  seems  fair,  it  is  wise  to  consider 
what  effect  prejudice  may  have  upon  the  result,  for  prejudice 
is  a  potent  factor  in  forensic  contests  and  sometimes  prevails 
against  the  law  and  the  evidence.  Powerful  corporations  are 
always  at  a  disadvantage,  for  prejudice,  often  senseless  and 
unreasoning,  leads  jurors  to  decide  against  them,  and,  it  is 
due  truth  to  say,  judges  are  sometimes  controlled  by  preju- 
dice. A  rich  man  opposed  to  a  poor  man  is  likewise  at  a  dis- 
advantage, and  it  is  often  prudent  for  him  to  yield  what  in 
strict  justice  he  ought  not  to  yield  in  order  to  settle  the  con- 
troversy. Prejudice  may,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  suggest, 
arise  from  many  causes;  a  party's  business  may  arouse  bitter 
prejudice;  his  religious  or  political  tenets  may  do  so  in  some 
communities,  and  so  may  his  manner  of  life.  These  are  a  few 
only  of  the  matters  to  be  considered  in  determining  what  in- 
fluence prejudice  is  likely  to  exert,  but  as  each  case  passes  in 
mental  review  the  thoughtful  lawyer  will  not  fail  to  discover 
the  sources  of  prejudice  and  the  influence  it  is  likely  to  exert. 
The  difficulty  of  procuring  evidence  and  the  like  are  also  mat- 
ters not  to  be  overlooked  in  determining  the  advisability  of 
making  overtures  for  a  compromise.  It  is  important  to  keep 
in  mind  that  the  party  who  is  compelled  to  rely  on  depositions 
is  not  so  strong,  other  things  being  equal,  as  the  one  who 
can  bring  his  witnesses  into  the  presence  of  the  jury.  The 
fact  that  one  party  wages  the  fight  in  his  own  county  against 
one  who  resides  elsewhere  is  a  matter  of  importance  in  some 
instances,  since  the  "man  at  home,"  if  of  good  repute,  is  ordi- 
narily in  a  better  situation  than  the  "man  from  abroad,"  even 


564  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  447 

though  the  "man  from  abroad"  may  come  from  no  great  dis- 
tance. In  some  cases  a  matter  for  consideration  is  the  age 
and  health  of  a  client,  for  death  may  end  the  action  or  else 
deprive  the  advocate  of  the  client's  aid.  The  probability  of 
enforcing  a  judgment  is  also  to  be  considered,  since,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  suggest,  it  is  much  better  to  be  sure  of 
collecting  a  judgment,  than  to  take  the  chances  of  a  return  to 
an  execution  of  nulla  bona.  The  hints  we  have  given  are  suf- 
ficient to  suggest  the  matters  the  advocate  should  consider, 
and  are  quite  enough  for  our  purpose,  and  probably  more 
than  many  may  think  needful.^ 

§  447.  Authority  to  compromise. — An  attorney,  merely  by 
virtue  of  his  employment  as  such,  has  no  implied  power  or  au- 
thority to  compromise  a  claim  or  action  which  he  is  employed 
to  prosecute  or  defend."^  But  it  has  been  held  that  if  an  at- 
torney assumes  the  right  to  compromise  and  does  enter  into  a 
compromise  for  the  benefit  of  his  client  the  court  will  not  pre- 
sume that  he  did  so  without  lawful  authority,  and  slight  evi- 

^  It  may  not  be  amiss,  however,  to  *  Granger  v.  Batchelder,  54  Vt.  248, 
add  the  following  advice  given  by  Mr.  S.  C.  41  Am.  R.  846 ;  Whipple  v.  Whit- 
Warren:  "Consider  well  the  oppo-  man,  13  R.  I.  512,  S.  C.  43  Am.  R,  42; 
nent  with  whom  you  have  to  deal.  **  *  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  72 
If  your  client  be  not  present,  and  re-  Texas,  70,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  758; 
ally  approving  of  what  you  are  doing.  Township  of  North  Whitehall  v.  Kel- 
you  undertake  a  grave  responsibility  ler,  100  Pa.  St.  105,  S.  C.  45  Am.  Rep. 
in  consenting  to  make  humiliating  361;  Eaton  v.  Knowles,  61  Mich.  625; 
acknowledgments  orconcessions  in  his  Repp  v.  AViles,  3  Ind.  App.  167,  S.  C. 
name  and  on  his  behalf,  and  may  open  29  N.  E.  R.  441 ;  Preston  v.  Hill,  50  Cal. 
upon  yourself  a  stream  of  perpetual  43,  S.  C.  19  Am.  R.  647 ;  Wadhams  v. 
bitterness  and  recrimination  hereaf-  Gay,  73  111.  415;  Robinson  v.  Murphy, 
ter.  You  should  also,  on  such  oc-  69  Ala.  543,  and  note  to  Clark  v.  Ran- 
casions,  consider  well  the  nature  of  dall,  76  Am.  Dec.  252,  261,  where  the 
the  dispute,  which  exists,  with  refer-  earlier  cases  are  collected.  The  En- 
ence  to  the  admission  or  acknowledg-  glish  rule  seems  to  give  the  attorney 
ment  insisted  on — whether  it  be,  or  be  more  powers.  See  note  to  Clark  v. 
not,  such  an  one  as  warrants  such  a  Randall,  supra.  See,  also,  Wieland  v. 
course,  or  admits  of  its  being  adopted  White,  109  Mass.  392;  Potter  v.  Par- 
without  seriously  compromising  im-  sons,  14  Iowa,  286 ;  Bonney  v.  Morrill, 
portant  and  permanent  interests  or  57  Me.  368;  Jeffries  u.  New  York,  etc., 
character."  Warren's  Duties  of  At-  Co.,  110  U.  S.  305. 
torneys,  206. 


§  448  SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF    COURT.  565 

dence  may  be  sufficient  to  authorize  the  inference  that  he  was 
clothed  with  all  the  power  that  he  assumed  to  exercise.^  So, 
in  another  recent  case  it  was  held  that  a  fair  and  judicious 
compromise  made  by  the  attorney  for  the  plaintiff  with  the  as- 
sent of  the  real  party  in  interest,  although  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  plaintiff  of  record,  would  not  be  disturbed.^  And 
there  may  be  unusual  cases  in  which  the  circumstances  are 
such  that  authority  to  compromise  will  be  presumed  or  im- 
plied.^ An  unauthorized  compromise  may,  of  course,  be  rat- 
ified by  the  client  in  the  same  manner  as  that  in  which  the 
unauthorized  act  of  any  agent  may  be  ratified  by  his  principal.* 

§  448.  Offer  to  compromise. — A  mere  offer  to  compromise, 
unaccepted  by  the  other  party,  is  not  binding,^  and  the  fact 
that  the  plaintiff,  before  suit,  offered  to  accept  a  certain  sum  in 
payment  of  his  claim  if  the  defendant  would  settle  it  without 
difficulty  or  trouble,  will  not  prevent  him  from  claiming  and 
recovering  a  larger  sum  in  an  action  therefor.*^  But  where  a 
defendant  used  a  written  statement  of  the  terms  of  a  compro- 

'East  Line,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  Freeman  v.  Brehm  (Ind.),  31  N.  E. 

72  Texas,  70,  S.  C.  13  Am.  St.  R.  758.  R.  545. 

See,  also,  Holker  v.  Parker,  7  Crancli  *  Filby  v.  Miller,  25  Pa.  St.  264;  Cul- 

(U.  S.)436,452;  Roller  r.  Wooldridge,  verhouse  v.  Marx,  39  La.  Ann.  809; 

46  Texas,  485 ;  People  v.  Quick,  92  111.  Mayer  v.  Foulkrod,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  503. 

580;  Trope  r.  Kerns,  83  Cal.  553.  vSee,  also,  Taylor  v.  Sutton,  6  La.  Ann. 

'Whipple  V.  Whitman,  13  R.  I.  512,  709;  Vose  v.  Treat,  58  Me.  378;  Mar- 

S.  C.  43  Am.  R.  42.     See,  also.  Will-  shall  v.  Moore,  36  111.  321;  King  v. 

iams  V.  Nolan,  58  Tex.  708,  713;  Black  Pope,  28  Ala.  601 ;  Repp  v.  Wiles,  3 

V.  Rogers,  75  Mo.  441,  448;    Holker  v.  Ind.  App.  167,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R.  441. 

Parker,  7  Cranch  (U.  S.)  436,  452.  *  Clark  v.  Pope,  29  Fla.  238,  S.  C.  10 

5  Union  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bu-  So.  R.  586.   See,  also,  Whiter.  Corlies, 

chanan,  100  Ind.  63.     See,  also,  Brock-  46N.Y.  467 ;  Strashurg.  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

ley  r.  Brockley,  122  Pa.  St.   1;  In  re  v.  Echternacht,  21  Pa.  St.  220,  S.  C.  60 

Heath's  Will,  S3  la.  215,  48  N.  W^  R.  Am.  Dec.  49;  Stitt  v.  Huidekopers,  17 

1037.     So,  of  course,  express  authority  Wall.  (U.  S.)  384  ;  McCallion  r.  Hiber- 

may  be  given,  and  where  the  attorney  nia,  etc.,  Ass'n,  70  Cal.  163;  Malby  v. 

was  told  to  do  the.  best  he  could  and  Osborne,  35  Minn.  387;  Indiana,  etc., 

the  client,  who  had  been  vouched  to  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  112  Ind.  302,  S.  C. 

defend  an  action  in  ejectment,  would  14  N.  E.  R.  80. 

repay  whatever  the  principal  defend-  ^Perkins  v.  Hasbrouck,  155  Pa.  St. 

ant  had  to  pay,  it  was  held  that  the  494,  S.  C.  26  Atl.  R.  695.     See,  Miller 

attorney  had  authority  to  compromise,  r.  Beale,  26  Ind.  234. 


5G6  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  449 

mise,  signed  only  by  the  plaintiff,  to  have  the  case  dismissed, 
it  was  held  that  he  was  as  much  bound  thereby  as  if  he  had 
signed  it  himself.^  An  offer  of  compromise  which  has  once 
been  declined  can  not  afterwards  be  accepted  so  as  to  bind  the 
person  who  made  it,  unless  renewed  by  him  or  left  open  for 
further  consideration.^  But  if  a  debtor  tenders  part  of  a  dis- 
puted debt  or  claim  in  full  satisfaction  thereof  and  the  creditor 
accepts  it  the  latter  is  bound  by  its  terms,  for  he  can  not  accept 
the  tender  and  at  the  same  time  refuse  to  abide  by  the  terms 
upon  which  it  is  made.^ 

§  449.  Consideration. — An  agreement  to  accept  in  full  satis- 
faction and  discharge  of  a  liquidated  debt  a  smaller  amount 
than  that  acknowledged  to  be  due  can  not  be  enforced  in  the 
absence  of  any  consideration  for  such  agreement.*  But  where 
there  is  a  colorable  claim,  or  a  doubtful  right,  a  compromise 
in  order  to  prevent  litigation  is  based  upon  a  sufficient  consid- 
eration.^ So,  it  has  been  held  that  a  note  voluntarily  given  in 
renewal  of  another  note  procured  by  fraud,  in  order  to  prevent 
litigation,  was  based  upon  a  valid  consideration.^     And  a  good 

'  Bonner  v.  Beard,  43  La.  Ann.  1036,  and  note ;  Deland  v.  Hiett,  27  Cal.  611, 

S.  C.  10  So.  R.  373.  S.  C.  87  Am.  Dec.  102,  and  note.     For 

'  Richardson  v.  Lenhard,  48  Kan.  many  exceptions  to  the  rule,  see  the 

629,  S.  C.  29  Pac.  R.  1076.     It  was  also  leading  article  in  17  Cent.  Law  Jour, 

held  in  this  case  that  eight  days'  delay  302,  referred  to,  supra. 

after  receiving  the  offer  was  too  long  ^Bement  v.  May  (Ind.),  34  N.  E.  R. 

to  expect  it  to  remain  open,  and  that  327;    Shaw  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 

it  could  not  be  made  binding  by  an  82  la.  199,  47  N.  W.  R.  1004;  Swemv. 

acceptance  at  the  end  of  that  period.  Green,  9  Col.  358;  Bellows  v.  Sowles, 

3  Deutman   v.    Kilpatrick,    46    Mo.  55  Vt.  391,  S.  C.  45  Am.  R.  621 ;  United 

App.  624.  States  Bank  v.  Homestead,  18  N.  Y. 

*The  authorities  are  collected  and  Supp.758;  Battles.  McArthur,  49 Fed. 

reviewed  by  Mr.  Greenhood  in  17  Cent.  R.  715;  Hennessy  v.  Bacon,  137  U.  S. 

Law  Jour.  302,  who  reaches  the  con-  78;  Smith  v.  Farra,  21  Ore.  395,  S.  C. 

elusion  that  this  is  the   rule  in  En-  20  L.  R.  A.  115;  White  v.  Hoyt,  73  N. 

gland  and  in  every  State  except  Penn-  Y.  505;  Brooks  v.  Hall,  36  Kan.  697; 

sylvania  and  Maine.     See,  also,  Don-  Griswoldt'.  Wright,  61  Wis.  195;  Flan- 

ohue  t>.  Woodbury,  6  Cush.  148,  S.  C.  nagan  v.  Kilcome,  58  N.  H.  443;  note 

52  Am.  Dec.  777,  and  note;    Davis  v.  to  Morgan  v.  Hodges,  15  L.  R.  A.  438. 

Stout,  126  Ind.  12;  Lathrop  v.  Page,  «Clough  v.  Holden  (Mo.),  20  S.  W, 

129  Mass.  19;    Geiser  v.  Kershner,  4  R.  695. 
Gill  &  J.  305,  S.  C.  23  Am.  Dec.  566, 


f  449  SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF    COURT.  567 

faith  composition  with   creditors  whereby  each   creditor  gives 
up  part  of  his  claim  and   agrees  to  withhold  or  withdraw  suit 
and  release  the  debtor  upon   the  payment  of  a  certain  other 
part  is  valid,  as  the  agreement  of  the  several  creditors  is  a  suf- 
ficient consideration  for  that  of  each  of  the  others.^     So,  where 
a  city  was  insolvent  it  was  held  that  a  compromise  agreement, 
whereby  one  who  had  obtained  a  judgment  against  the  city  as- 
signed her  judgment  to  a  trustee  for  such  city,  in  consideration 
of  which  the  latter  agreed  to  pay  certain  costs  incurred  by  the 
judgment  plaintiff  in  addition  to  a  small  sum  of  money,  was 
based  upon  a  sufficient  consideration  and  was  valid,  although 
the  amount  paid  to  the  plaintiff  was  less  than  the  face  of  the 
judgment.^     But  where  the  legal  rights  of  the  parties  are  clear 
and  the  claim  is  not  made  in  good  faith  it  is  generally  held 
that  a  promise  made  in  order  to  obtain  a  settlement  can  not  be 
legally  enforced,^  although  the  mere  existence  of  a  controversy 
is  held  sufficient  by  some  of  the  courts.*     If  the  claim  is  un- 
liquidated and  there  is  a  dispute  simply  as  to  the  amount,  a 
promise  to  pay  a  certain  sum  by  way  of  compromise  is  clearly 
based  upon  a  sufficient  consideration.^ 


■  Eaton  V.  Lincoln,  13  Mass.  424 
Perkins  v.  Lock  wood,  100  IVIass.  249 
Farrington  v.  Hodgdon,  119  Mass.  453 


"  Larned  v.  City  of  Dubuque  (Iowa), 
53  N.  W.  R.  105. 
3  Moon    V.   Martin,   122    Ind.    211; 


White  V.  Kuntz,  107  N.  Y.  518,  S.  C.  1  United  States  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Henderson, 

Am.  St.  R.  886;  Way  v.  Langley,  15  111  Ind.  24;  Sherman  v.  Barnard,  19 

Ohio  St.  392;  Henry  v.  Patterson,  57  Barb.  (X.Y.)  291,  302;  Pitkin  i'.  Noyes, 

Pa.  St.  346;    Steinman  v.  Magnus,  11  48  N.  H.  294;    Sullivan  v.  Collins,  18 

East,  390.     See,   also,   "Compositions  Iowa,  228;    Foster  v,  Metts,  55  Miss, 

with  Creditors,"  17  Cent.  Law  Jour.  77,  S.  C.  30  Am.  R.  504;    Anthony  v. 

302,  304.     But  fraud,  concealment  and  Boyd,  15  R.  I.  495;  Fire  Ins.  Ass'n  v. 

misrepresentation  by  the  debtor  may  Wickham,  141  U.  S.  564,  577. 

avoid  the  composition.   Sevingr.  Gale,  *The  authorities  upon  both  sides  of 

28  Ind.  486;    Hefter  v.  Cahn,  73  111.  this  question  are  collected  in  the  ex- 

296;  Jackson  v.  Hodges,  24  Md.  468;  haustive  note  to  Morgan  r.  Hodges,  15 

O'Shea  v.  White  Lead  Co.,  42  Mo.  397 ;  L.  R.  A.  438. 

S.  C.  97  Am.  Dec.  332,  and  note;  Dol-  *  Fire  Ins.  Ass'n  v.  Wickham,    141 

Bon  V.  Arnold,  10  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)  U.  S.  5li4,  S.  C.  12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  84; 

528;  Stafford  v.  Bacon,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.),  Stimpson  v.  Poole,  141  Mass.  502. 
632,  S.  C.  37  Am.  Dec.  366 ;  Hunting- 
ton V.  Clark,  39  Conn.  540. 


568  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT,  §  450 

§  450.  Negotiatino:  a  compromise. — "As  to  compromises/* 
says  Mr.  Chitty,  "they  may  be  made  and  invited  by  the  attor- 
neys on  each  side;  and  if  made  either  impliedly,  and  still  more 
if  expressly,  without  prejudice,  they  can  not  be  taken  advant- 
age of  injuriously  by  either  party.  "^  At  another  place,  he 
says:  "In  negotiations  between  solicitors  of  known  integrity 
and  honor,  there  will  be  no  danger  from  an  interchange  of 
candor  and  liberality;  but,  unhappily,  there  is  too  frequently 
great  risk  of  the  want  of  reciprocity  in  candor,  and,  conse- 
quently, unless  the  honor  of  the  opponent  be  well  known,  no 
communication  of  facts  should  be  made  that  could  be  ungen- 
erously taken  advantage  of  injuriously  to  the  client,  even 
though  expressed  to  be  made  without  prejudice."^  The  cus- 
tomary practice  of  addressing  all  communications  upon  the 
subject  of  compromise  "without  prejudice"  is  severely  criti- 
cised by  another  English  author,  and  he  agrees  with  Mr. 
Chitty  in  advising  the  utmost  care  in  negotiating  a  compro- 
mise. "A  plaintiff's  or  defendant's  solicitor,"  he  says, 
"should  never  make  an  offer  or  a  suggestion  to  the  other  side, 
which,  if  known,  would  even  tend  to  prejudice  the  interests  of 
his  client."^  Admissions  are  always  dangerous.  It  is  safest 
to  carry  on  the  negotiations  in  writing,  and  then  there  can  be 
no  dispute  as  to  the  terms  of  the  compromise.  They  should 
generally  be  carried  on  between  the  attorneys,  and  not  between 
an  attorney  upon  one  side  and  the  client  of  another  attorney 
upon  the  other,  although  there  may  be  exceptional  cases  in 
which  this  would  be  proper.  No  honorable  attorney  will  seek 
to  compromise  a  case  with  the  client  of  another  secretly  where 
the  latter  is  acting  in  good  faith,  and  even  if  such  conduct 
were  honorable  it  would  not,  ordinarily,  be  advisable,  as  it 
might  afterwards  be  claimed  that  undue  advantage  was  taken 
of  the  inexperienced  client.  As  a  general  rule  an  unaccepted 
offer  or  admission  by  way  of  compromise  is  not  binding,  but 
care  should  be  taken  to  have  it  understood  that  the  offer  or  ad- 
mission is  confidential  and  by  way  of  compromise,  and  not  an 

'  2  Chitty's  Gerv  Pr.,  58.  ^  Harris'  Before  and  at  Trial,  28. 

*  2  Chitty's  Gen.  Pr.,  24. 


§  451  SETTLING    CONTROVERSIES    OUT    OF    COURT.  509 

admission  of  liability,  or,  better  still,  as  already  suggested,  no 
injurious  or  unqualified  admission  should  be  made.  It  was 
held  many  years  ago  by  the  English  courts  that  an  offer  to 
settle  for  a  certain  sum,  not  made  in  confidence  or  stated  to  be 
without  prejudice,  is  admissible  in  evidence,^  and  it  has  re- 
cently been  held  by  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  that  evi- 
dence of  a  conversation  between  the  plaintiff  and  defendant, 
brought  about  by  the  latter  without  reservation,  wherein  the 
defendant  offered  a  certain  sum  as  compensation  for  injuries 
inflicted  upon  the  plaintiff  was  admissible  as  tending  to  .show 
an  acknowledgment  of  liability  upon  the  part  of  the  defendant.^ 

§  451.  Effect  of  compromise. — Compromises  are  favored  by 
the  law,-^  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  valid  compromise  is 
binding  upon  the  parties.  It  is  regarded  as  finally  adjusting 
all  matters  growing  out  of  the  transaction  to  which  it  relates, 
unless  it  clearly  appears  that  it  is  merely  conditional  or  that 
part  of  the  transaction  was  not  intended  to  be  included  in  the 
settlement.*  Thus,  it  has  even  been  held  that  a  settlement  of 
all  damages  sustained  by  the  goring  of  a  horse  by  a  bull  is  a 
bar  to  an  action  for  the  subsequent  death  of  the  horse  from 
yuch  injury,  although  the  possibility  that  the  injury  might  re- 
sult in  his  death  was  not  considered  when  the  compromise  was 
made.-'^  So,  where  a  voluntary  settlement  of  accounts  is  made 
it  will  be  presumed  that  all  proper  items  were  included,  and,  in 
the  absence  of  fraud  or  mistake  of  some  kind,  this  presump- 
tion is  generally  conclusive.*^     And  a  final  settlement  and  re- 

MVallace  v.  Small,  1   :Moody  &.  ^l.  Society  v.  Campbell,  13  L.  R.  A.  001, 

446;    Thomson  r.  Austen,  2  Dowl.  &  and  note. 

R.  358.     Compare  White  c.  Old  Do-  *Caperton  v.  Caperton,  36  W.  Va. 

minion  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  660.  63-5,  S.  C.  15  S.  E.  R.  149.     See,  also, 

»  Brice  v.  Bauer,  108  N.  Y.  428,  S.  C.  Mateer  r.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  R.  Co., 

2  Am.  St.  R.  4.54.     See,  also,  Hatcher  105  Mo.  320,  S.  C.  16  S.  W.  R.  839; 

V.  Bowen,  74  Ga.  840.  Rowland  v.  Rooke,  158  Mass.  590,  S. 

^  Shank  v.  Shoemaker,  18  N.  Y.  489 ;  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  652. 

Wells  V.  Neff,  14  Ore.  66;    Steele  v.  *  Currier  v.  Bilger,  149  Pa.  St.  109, 

White,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.),  478;    Cornell  S.  C.  24  Atl.  R.  168. 

V.  Masten,  3-5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  157  ;  Penn  «  Linville  r.  State,  130  Ind.  210,  S.  C. 

V.  Baltimore,  1  Ves.  Sr.  444;    Royal  29  N.  E.  R.  1129. 


570  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  452 

lease  may  preclude  a  recovery  upon   the    claim   against    the 
party  with   whom   the  compromise   was   made,   although  the 
person  who  executed  it  may  have  mistakenly  supposed  that  he 
could  hold  some  one  else  upon  the  claim/  or  may  afterwards 
have  obtained  no  benefit  from  that  which  he  received  in  settle- 
ment because  of  something  entirely  outside  of  any  matter  in 
dispute  and  not  within  the  control  of  either  party  .^     A  settle- 
ment pending  litigation  has  also  been  held  a  sufficient  consid- 
eration for  an  agreement  to  be  performed  in  the  future  relating 
to  the  subject-matter  of  the  litigation.^     But  it  has  been  held 
that  the  mere  fact  of  a  settlement  between  a  debtor  and  cred- 
itor, which  may  have  included  the  amount  of  a  secured  claim, 
will  not  justify  a  finding  that  such  claim  was  satisfied  and  dis- 
charged.^    So,  an  agreement  reciting  that  all  claims  "pertain- 
ing to  the  taking  of  certain  corn"  were  settled  in  full  was  held 
not  to  include  a  judgment  in  an  action  for  malicious  prosecu- 
tion obtained  by  one  of  the  parties  against  the  other  who  had 
charged  him  with  the  larceny  of  such  corn.^     And  where  an 
action  in  which  a  counter-claim  had  been  filed  was  discontin- 
ued by  agreement  and  no  reference  was  made  to  the  counter- 
claim it  was  held  that  the  latter  was   not  discharged  by  the 
settlement  of  the  plaintiff's  cause  of  action.^ 

§  452.  Abandonment  and  rescission. — It  has  been  held  that 
an  abandonment  of  a  compromise  will  be  presumed  where  the 
debtor  delays  for  an  unreasonable  time  to  comply  with  the 
terms  of  the  settlement  and  does  acts  in  conflict  with  his  agree- 
ment.^ So,  it  may  be  abandoned  by  agreement  of  both  parties, 
or  one  of  the  parties  may  rescind  it  for  fraud, ^  and,  in  some 

'  Battle  V.  McArthur,  49  Fed.  R.  715.  *  Yates  v.  Kinney,  33  Neb.  853,  S.  C. 

See,  also,  Coffee  v.  Emigh,  15  Col.  184,  51  N.  W.  R.  230. 

S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  125.  ^Clancey  v.  Losey,  65  Hun  (N.  Y.), 

2  Mackall  v.  Casilear,  137  U.  S.  556,  625. 

S.  C.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  178.  'Citizens'  Bank  v.  Jorda's  Heirs,  45 

•■'  Robson  V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Co.,  43  La.  Ann.  184,  S.  C.  11  So.  R.  876. 

Fed.  R.  304.  8  Town  v.  Waldo,  62  Vt.  118,  S.  C.  20 

*  Coleman  v.  Whitney,  62  Vt.  123,  S.  Atl.  R.  325 ;  Berry  v.  American,  etc., 

C.9  L.  R.  A.  517.     See,  also,  Hermann  Ins.  Co.,  132  N.  Y.  49;   Davis  v.  Gur- 

«.  Orcutt,  152Mas3.  405,  S.  C.25N.E.  ney,   38   111.   App.   520;    Anthony  v. 

B.  735.  Boyd,  15  R.  I.  495;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v. 


§452 


SETTLIN-G    CONTROVERSIES   OUT   OF   COURT. 


571 


cases,  on  account  of  mistake.^  But,  "he  who  seeks  equity 
must  do  equity,"  and  if  the  party  seeking  to  rescind  the  agree- 
ment has  received  anything  tliereunder  he  must  return  or  ten- 
der it  back. 2  He  must  also  use  due  diligence  after  discovering 
the  fraud. '^  These  rules  are  in  accordance  with  the  general 
principles  governing  the  doctrine  of  rescission.* 


Howard,  HI  Ind.  544;  S.  C.  13  N.  E. 
R.  103. 

>Epe8  V.  Williams  (Va.),  17  S.  E. 
R.  235. 

'Town  V.  Waldo,  62  Vt.  118,  S.  C. 
20  Atl.  R.  325 ;  Henderson  v.  Under- 
writers Ass'n,  65  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  732; 
Wells  V.  Neff,  14  Ore.  66 ;  Pangborn  v. 
Continental  Ins.  Co.   67  Mich.  683,  S. 


C.  35  N.  W.  R.  814 ;  Hart  v.  Gould,  62 
Mich.  262,  S.  C.  28  N.W.  R.  831.  Cora- 
pare  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Naugle,  130 
Ind.  79,  S.C.29  N.  E.  R.393;  Reddick 
V.  Keesling,  129  Ind.  128. 

'  Lewless  i'.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
62  Mich.  292. 

*See  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law, 
24. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


ARBITRATION   AND  AWARD. 


§453. 
454. 
455. 


456. 

457. 
458. 

459. 
460. 

461. 


Definition. 

Classes  of  submission. 

Importance  of  discriminating 
between  a  general  and  a  par- 
tial submission. 

Statutory  and  common  law  sub- 
missions. 

When  arbitration  is  advisable. 

When  arbitration  is  i  n  e  x  p  e- 
dient. 

Who  may  submit. 

What  may  be  submitted. 

Revocation  of  submission. 


(  462.  Ratification  of  submission. 

463.  Specific  performance  of  agree- 

ment to  submit. 

464.  Effect  of  agreement  upon  right 

to  sue. 

465.  Who  may  be  arbitrators. 

466.  Arbitrators  must  act  together. 

467.  Procedure. 

468.  The  award. 

469.  Effect  of  award. 

470.  Enforcement  of  award. 

471.  Impeaching  and   setting  aside 

the  award. 


§  453.  Definition. — One  of  the  modes  of  adjusting  a  contro- 
versy without  going  into  court  is  by  a  submission  to  arbitra- 
tion. According  to  the  common  law  rule  civil  controversies 
respecting  the  rights  of  persons  and  things  may  be  by  mutual 
agreement  submitted  for  investigation  to  persons  chosen  by  the 
parties.^  The  agreement  by  which  parties  refer  a  matter  in 
dispute  to  a  designated  person  or  persons  is  usually  called  a 
submission,^  the  person  to  whom  it  is  referred  is  called  an  ar- 
bitrator and  the  decision  is  called  an  award. ^ 


1  Finley  v.  Funk,  35  Kan.  668,  S.  C. 
12  Pac.  Rep.  15;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stewart,  19  Fed.  R.  5 ;  Cox  v.  Jagger, 
2  Cowen,  638;  Green  v.  Ford,  17  Ark. 
586;  McCracken  v.  Clarke,  31  Pa.  St. 
498;  Austin  v.  Snow's  Lessee,  2  Dall. 
157;  Knight  v.  Burton,  6  Mod.  231 ; 
Hunter  v.  Rice,  15  East,  100 ;  Downs 
V.  Cooper,  2  Q.  B.  256;  Penniman  v. 
Rodman,  13  Mete.  382 ;  Carey  v.  Wil- 
cox, 6  N.  H.  177;  Akely  v.  Akely,  16 
Vt.  450;  Page  v.  Foster,  7  N.  H.  392; 
McNear  v.  Bailey,  18  Me.  251.  Crim- 
inal cases  can  not  be  submitted  to  ar- 


bitration. Hall  V.  Kimmer,  61  Mich. 
269,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  575;  Harring- 
ton V.  Brown,  9  Allen,  579.  Pure  ques- 
tions of  law  may  be  submitted.  Ching 
V.  Ching,  6  Vesey,  282 ;  Wilkinson  v. 
Page,  1  Hare,  276 ;  Price  v.  Hollis,  1  M. 
&  S.  105 ;  Steff  v.  Andrews,  2  Madd.  6. 

*  In  one  of  the  old  books,  quaint  in 
style  almost  as  Izaak  Walton's,  it  is 
said:  "The  submission  is  the  power 
given  the  arbitrators  to  pronounce 
sentence  between  the  parties."  The 
"Compleat  Arbitrator,"  Section  II. 

^  Kyd  on  Awards,  6.     An  arbitrator 


(572) 


§454 


ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 


573 


§  454.  Classes  oi*  submission. — According  to  the  old  books 
a  submission  may  be  general,  covering  the  entire  matters  in 
dispute  between  the  parties,  or  it  may  be  conditional,  limiting 
the  authority  of  the  arbitrators  to  specific  matters;  so,  too,  it 
may  be  absolute  and  thus  confer  upon  the  person  selected  gen- 
eral authority  as  to  methods  and  the  like,  or  it  may  be  condi- 
tional, requi^-ing  him  to  pursue  a  designated  course  or  act  in 
a  prescribed  mode.  It  seems  to  us  that  a  better  classification 
than  absolute  and  conditional  is  general  and  partial.  A  gen- 
eral submission  may  be  regarded  as  one  wherein  an  entire  con- 
troversy is  submitted  for  decision  embracing  all  incidental 
questions,  whether  such  questions  be  questions  of  law  or  of 
fact,^  and  a  partial  submission  may  be  deemed  to  be  one  in 


is  clothed  with  functions  of  a  judicial 
nature,  since  he  is  empowered  to  hear 
and  decide.  "The  first  element  of  a 
submission  to  arbitration  is,  that  it 
should  show  an  intention  of  the  par- 
ties to  be  concluded  by  the  decision 
of  the  arbitrator.  But  a  mere  agree- 
ment between  two  persons  to  be  con- 
cluded by  the  decision  of  a  third  would 
not  itself  constitute  that  third  person 
an  arbitrator.  To  give  him  that  char- 
acter there  must  be  a  difference  be- 
tween the  parties,  or  his  duties  must 
involve  the  performance  of  judicial 
functions.  Thus,  where  it  is  left  to  a 
person  to  whom  the  matter  is  referred 
to  put  a  value  upon  something  which 
the  parties  have  already  agreed  shall 
be  paid  for,  this  is  not  an  arbitration 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  but  in 
reality  an  appraisement  which  pre- 
vents differences  and  does  not  settle 
any  which  have  arisen."  Redman's 
Law  of  .Vrbitration,  1.  AVe  think  that 
the  author  from  whom  we  have  tiuoted 
conveys  a  somewhat  erroneous  impres- 
sion by  the  illustration  he  employs. 
It  is  no  doubt  true  that  in  a  strict  sense 
a  person  selected  to  make  a  mere  val- 
uation or  appraisement  is  not  an  arbi- 


trator. He  is  usually  a  mere  vainer 
or  appraiser.  Garred  i'.  Macey,  lU  Mo. 
161 ;  Curry  v.  Lacky,  35  Mo.  389 ;  Ma- 
son V.  Bridge,  14  Me.  468;  McKinney 
V.  Page,  32  Me.  513 ;  Collins  v.  Collins, 
28  L.  J.  Ch.  184,  S.  C.  26  Beav.  306; 
Bos  V.  Ilelsham,  L.  R.  2  Exch.  72; 
Turners.  Goulden,  L.  R.  9  C.  P.  57; 
Garr  I'.  Gomez,  9  Wend.  649 ;  Leeds  v. 
Burrows,  12  East,  1 ;  Jenkins  r.  Be- 
tham,  15  C.  B.  168;  Wadsworth  r. 
Smith,  40  L.  J.  Q.  B.  118,  L.  R.  6  Q. 
B.  332;  Efner  v.  Shaw,  2  Wend.  567; 
Rochester  v.  Whitehouse,  15  N.  H. 
468.  (But  see.  Smith  r.  Boston,  etc., 
Co.,  36  N.  H.  458;  Leonard  v.  House, 
15  Ga.  473.1  Where,  however,  there 
is  an  existing  controversy  and  it  only 
concerns  value  then,  as  we  believe,  the 
person  chosen  to  decide  the  contro- 
versy by  hearing  evidence  and  mak- 
ing a  decision  is  an  arbitrator.  In  re 
Hopper,  2  L.  R.  Q.  B.  367 ;  In  re  Evans, 
22  L.  T.  501. 

'  De  Long  r.  Stanton.  9  Johns.  38; 
Barker  r.  Belknap,  39  Vt.  16S;  Mer- 
ritt  V.  Merritt.  11  111.  5»)5:  Indiana, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Braflly,  7  Ind.  49;  Munro 
V.  Alaire,  2  Caines,  320;  Byers  r.  Van 
DeuBen,  5  Wend.  268;   Sellick  r.  Ad- 


574  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  455 

which  specific  questions  are  submitted  or  parts  of  a  contro- 
versy referred  to  arbitration.  It  is  evident  that  the  division 
into  absolute  and  conditional  is  not  a  logical  one,  inasmuch  as 
it  does  not  exhaust  the  subject  to  be  partitioned  and  admits  of 
confusing  cross  divisions.  This  is  obvious  when  it  is  brought 
to  mind  that  what  the  old  books  call  a  conditional  submission 
may  be  either  a  conditional  general  submission  or  a  conditional 
partial  one,  and  so,  too,  a  general  or  a  partial  submission  may 
be  an  absolute  one.  As  the  name  implies,  a  conditional  sub- 
mission is  one  upon  condition  or  one  upon  which  the  award  is 
to  be  effective  only  in  the  event  of  the  performance  of  a  des- 
ignated condition  or  the  happening  of  a  specified  contingency.^ 
Whether  a  submission  is  general  or  partial  depends,  it  is  barely 
necessary  to  suggest,  upon  the  terms  of  the  agreement  provid- 
ing for  the  arbitration. 

§  455.  Importance  of  discriminating:  between  a  general  and 
a  partial  submission. — A  general  submission  carries  to  the  ar- 
bitrators the  principal  matter  of  the  controversy  submitted  and 
all  necessary  incidental  questions. ^  A  partial  submission  car- 
ries to  the  persons  selected  to  decide  the  matters  in  dispute 
only  such  questions  or  matters  as  are  designated  in  the  agree- 
ment of  the  parties.^     It  is  important  to  discriminate  between 

ams,  15  Johns.  197 ;  Woods  u.  Page,  37  generally,  Terre  Haute,  etc.,    Co.   v. 

Vt.  252;  Thrasher  v.  Haynes,  2  N.  H.  Harris,  126  Ind.  7;  Walters  v.  Hutch- 

429.  ins,  29  Ind.  136;    Armstrong  v.  Mas- 

^Spence    v.    Eastern,    etc.,    Co.,   7  ten,  llJohns.  189;  Jessiman  v.  Hav- 

Dowl.  697;    Inhabitants  of  Boston  v.  erhill,  etc.,  Co.,  1  N.  H.  68;  Masury 

Brazer,     11    Mass.    447;     Merritt    v.  v.  Whiton,  111  N.  Y.  679,  S.  C.  18  N. 

Thompson,  27  N.  Y.  225.  E.  R.  638;  Dhrew  v.  Altoona,  121  Pa. 

»  Wyatt  V.  Lynchburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  110  St.  401,  S.  C.  15  Atl.  R.  636 ;  PhilHps' 

N.  Car.  245,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  Rep.  683;  Estate,  48  Phila.  Legal  Int.  232. 

Fowler  v.  Jackson,  86  Ga.  337,  S.  C.  ^  Dodds  v.  Hakes,  114  N.  Y.  260,  S. 

12  S.  E.  R.  811;  Simons  v.  Mills,  80  C.  21  N.  E.  R.398;  Turnocki;.  Sartoris, 

Cal.  118,  8.  C.  22  Pac.  R.  25;    Bryan  L.  R.  43  Ch.  D.   150;    Cooke  v.  Odd 

V.  Jeffreys,  104  N.  Car.  242,  S.  C.  10  S.  Fellows,  etc.,  Union,  49  Hun,  23,  S. 

E.  R.  167;  Ivesv.  Ashelby,  26  111.  App.  C.  17  N.  Y.  S.  R.  490;  Knickerbocker, 

244;  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schneider,  etc.,  Co.  u.  Smith,  147  Pa.  St.  248,  S. 

119  N.  Y.  475,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  Rep.  4;  C.  23  Atl.  R.  563;    Doane  College  v. 

Adams  v.  Great  North,  etc.,  Co.,  —  Lanham,  26    Neb.  421,   S.   C.   42  N. 

H.  of  L.  Cases,  1891,  A.  C.  31.     See,  W.  R.  405;   Leslies.  Leslie  (N.  J.), 


§  456  ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD.  575 

the  two  classes  of  submission  for  the  reason  that  it  is  frequently 
advisable  to  reserve  questions  of  law  for  the  court,  and  for  the 
further  reason  that  it  is  often  expedient  to  submit  some  of  the 
specific  questions  in  the  case  to  the  regular  tribunals  of  the 
law.  When  we  come  to  consider  the  effect  of  an  award  we 
shall  show  other  reasons  why  discrimination  is  of  importance. 
Parties  may  stipulate  what  matters  shall  be  submitted  and  tlius 
limit  the  authority  of  the  arbitrators  in  all  cases  where  the 
matter  or  question  is  susceptible  of  division,^  so  that  it  is  im- 
portant to  limit  where  it  is  the  purpose  to  place  before  the 
arbitrators  a  part  only  of  a  controversy.  We  can  see  no  reason 
why  parties  may  not  by  agreement  submit  independent  specific 
questions  to  arbitration  in  cases  where  severance  can  be  effected, 
since  the  severance  is  by  contract,  and  in  the  first  instance  dis- 
tinct and  independent  contracts  might  have  been  made  in  cases 
where  the  subject  was  one  of  a  divisible  character.^ 

§  456.   Statutory  and  eoiumoii  law  submissions. — In  many 
of  the  States  the  statute  provides  what  cases  may  be  submitted 

S.  C.24Atl.  R.  1029;  King  Iron  Bridge  of  law  and  fact,  which  can  affect  the 

Co.  I'.  St.  Louis,  43  Fed.  R.  7(58.  final    and    ultimate  decision   of    the 

*  Hurst  V.  Litchfield,  39  N.  Y.  377 ;  cause,  is  included  in  the  authority  of 
Hamilton  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  137  U.  S.  the  referees  and  is  matter  proper  for 
370.  But  see,  as  to  effect  of  a  statu-  their  determination.  2  Story's  Eq., 
tory  provision,  Thygerson  v. Whitbeck,  section  1454;  Kleine  (?.  Catara,  2  Gall. 
5  Utah,  406,  S.  C.  l(i  Pac.  R.  403.  See,  61 ;  Walker  v.  Sanborn,  3  Greeul.  288. 
also,  as  indicating  a  different  view  Under  a  general  submission,  there- 
from that  taken  in  the  text,  the  article  fore — by  which  I  mean  a  submission 
entitled  "Arbitration  and  Award  as  a  containing  no  express  reservation  or 
Condition  Precedent,"  16  Albany  Law  limitation  upon  the  authority  con- 
J.,464.  ferred — both  the  law  and  fact  are  snb- 

*  In  Johnson  v.  Noble,  13  N.  H.  286,  mitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  arbitra- 
S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  485,  the  court  said :  tors,  or  referees,  for  their  considera- 
"  And  it  is  a  necessary  result  from  the  tion  and  decision.  And  it  is  very  well 
power  to  submit  generally,  that  they  settle<l  that,  in  sui'h  case,  arbitrators 
have  also  the  power  and  right  to  limit  are  not  restricted  by  the  submission  to 
the  authority  conferred,  and  its  exer-  decide  according  to  strict  principles  of 
cise,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  deemed  law,  but  their  decision  will  be  in  con- 
expedient.  If,  however,  no  reserva-  formity  with  the  suV>mission,  although 
tion  is  made  in  the  agreement  of  sub-  it  may  be  made  in  disregard  of  the  law 
mission  the  parties  are  presumed  to  and  contrary  thereto." 

agree  that  every  consideration,  both 


576 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§456 


to  arbitration  and  prescribes  the  mode  of  procedure,  and  in 
some  of  the  States  the  submission  to  arbitration  is  almost  en- 
tirely statutory.  As  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  consider  specific 
statutes  upon  any  subject,  and  as  we  propose  to  give  only  a 
general  outline  of  the  subject  of  arbitration  and  award,  we  shall 
not  do  more  than  refer  in  a  general  way  to  the  statutes  and 
their  effect.  It  is  held  by  many  of  the  courts  that  where  the 
statute  does  not  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication  forbid 
resort  to  the  common  law  mode  of  arbitration  and  award  it 
may  be  pursued  and  the  statutory  proceeding  will  be  regarded 
as  merely  cumulative.  Where  the  two  systems  are  recognized 
the  parties  may  elect  under  which  of  the  two  they  will  proceed.-^ 
If  a  party  seeks  the  benefit  of  the  statutory  arbitration  he  should 
proceed  under  the  statute,  for  a  common  law  award  is  not  en- 
forceable as  a  statutory  one.^  If  the  submission  is  valid  under 
the  common  law  rule  it  may  be  upheld  even  though  the  parties 
undertook  to  proceed  under  the  statute  but  failed  because  of  a 
neglect  to  comply  with  its  requirements.^     Where  the  statute 


'Titus  V.  Scantling,  4  Blackf.  89; 
Carson  v.  Earlywine,  14  Ind.  256; 
Miller  v.  Goodwine,  29  Ind.  46 ;  For- 
queron  v.  Van  Meter,  9  Ind.  270; 
Hawes  v.  Combs,  34  Ind.  455;  Smith 
V.  Kirkpatrick,  58  Ind.  254;  Byard  v. 
Harkrider,  108  Ind.  376 ;  Kelley  v.  Ad- 
ams, 120  Ind.  340;  Wells  v.  Lain,  15 
Wend.  99;  Logsdon  v.  Roberts,  3 
Monr.  255;  Overly  v.  Overly,  1  Mete. 
(Ky.)  117;  Byrd  v.  Odem,  9  Ala.  755; 
Lamar  ?7.  Nicholson,  7  Porter  (Ala.), 
158 ;  Conger  v.  Dean,  3  Clarke  (Iowa), 
463;  Fink  v.  Fink,  8  Clarke  (Iowa), 
313;  Howard  v.  Sexton,  4  N.  Y.  157; 
Diedrick  v.  Richley,  2  Hill,  271,  note; 
In  re  Kreiss  (Cal.),  S.  C.  28  Pac.  R. 
808;  Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bon- 
ner, etc.,  Co., 44 Fed.  R.  151.  The  de- 
cisions of  the  New  York  Court  of  Ap- 
peals are  in  apparent  conflict  upon  this 
question.  Bulson  v.  Lohnes,  29  N.  Y. 
291 ;  Burnside  v.  Whitney,  21  N. Y.  148. 
See,    generally.    Brown    v.   Kincaid, 


Wright  (Ohio),  37;  Wilkes  v.  Cotter, 
28  Ark.  519;  Eisenmeyerv.  Sauter,  77 
111.  515. 

^  Conger  ^).  Dean,  3  Clarke  (Iowa), 
463;  Foust  v.  Hastings,  66  Iowa,  622; 
Fink  V.  Fink,  8  Iowa,  313;  Love  v. 
Burns,  35  la.  150;  Deerfield  v.  Arms, 
20  Pick.  480,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  228; 
Pierce  v.  Kirby,  21  Wis.  124 ;  Williams 
V.  Walton,  9  Cal.  142;  Barney  v. 
Flower,  27  Minn.  403;  Davis  v.  Ber- 
ger,  54  Mich.  652;  Hamilton  v  Ham- 
ilton, 27  111.  158;  Price  v.  Byne,  57 
Ga.  176 ;  Boots  v.  Canine,  94  Ind.  408 ; 
Francis  V.  Ames,  14  Ind.  251;  Estep 
V.  Larsh,  16  Ind.  82;  Healy  v.  Isaacs, 
73  Ind.  226;  Hawes  v.  Combs,  34  Ind. 
455;  Boots  v.  Canine,  58  Ind.  450; 
Wright  V.  Raddin,  100  Mass.  319; 
Smith  V.  Pollock,  2  Cal.  92;  Hold- 
ridge  V.  Stowell,  39  Minn.  360,  S.  C. 
40  N.  W.  R.  259. 

'  Thornton  v.  McCormick,  75  la.  285 ; 
McKinnis  v.  Freeman,  38  Iowa,  364; 


§  457  AKHITRATION    AND    AWARD.  577 

provides  an  exclusive  mode  of  procedure  or  provides  what 
matters  may  be  submitted  to  arbitration,  and  in  so  providing 
iibrogates  the  common  law,  there  can,  of  course,  be  only  a 
statutory  system,  and  only  such  matters  can  be  submitted  as 
the  statute  i)rescribes.^ 

§  457.  When  arbitration  is  advisable. — Most  controversies 
are  better  and  njore  justly  settled  by  a  court  or  jury  than  by 
persons  selected  by  the  parties.  It  is  tlie  experience  of  most 
lawyers  that  arbitration  i.s  generally  an  unsatisfactory  mode  of 
settling  legal  controversies.  There  are,  however,  cases  where 
arbitration  is  expedient  and  satisfactory.  Where  the  opposing 
parties  are  intelligent  and  active  business  men  and  the  dispute 
concerns  purely  business  matters  it  is  often  expedient  to  sub- 
mit to  arbitration  provided  always  that  intelligent  men  actively 
engaged  in  business  can  be  secured  as  arbitrators.  Cases 
where  the  controversy  involves  long  and  complicated  accounts 
s,Te  better  considered  and  determined  by  a  competent  arbitrator 
than  by  a  jury  or  by  a  busy  judge, ^  but  in  such  cases  one  com- 
petent referee  or  arbitrator  is  usually  better  than  two  or  more. 
Corporations  as  a  rule  profit  by  a  submission  to  arbitration 
since  jurors  are  ordinarily  impressed  with  the  belief  that  they 
are  more  powerful  than  individuals,  and  in  most  cases  are 
prejudiced  against  them.  There  is,  too,  a  feeling, — and  one 
very  frequently  manifested, — that  a  corporation  is  a  sort  of 
unreal  organization  and  that  in  punishing  it  or  in  mulcting  it 
in  damages  a  private  individual  may  be  benefited  without 
harm  to  any  natural  person.  One  who  believes  that  justice 
will  entitle  him  to  succeed  but  fears  that  a  harsh  statutory  pro- 
Burroughs  V.  David,  7  Iowa,  154 ;  Gal-  "I  was  once,"  he  writes,  "in  the  Court 
loway  «.  Gibson,  51  Mich.  135;  AVil-  of  King's  Bench,  when  one  of  the 
lingham  V.  Harrell,36  Ala.  583;  Tyler  counsel  was  making  a  motion  upon 
V.  Dyer,  13  Me.  41 ;  Tynan  v.  Tate,  3  an  affidavit  filled  with  matters  of  ac- 
Neb.  388;  Low  v.  Nolte,  16  111.475;  count  and  calculation  of  figures  which 
Myers  v.  Easterwood,  60  Texas,  107 ;  he  was  detailing  to  the  judges  who 
Lusk  V.  Clayton,  70  N.  Car.  184.  rose,  and  one  of  them  sai<l  (interrupt- 

'  McClendon  v.  Kemp,  18  La.  Ann.  ing  him),  'This  court  does  not  sit  here 
162.  as  accountants,'   and   they    retired." 

*  Hawkshead  gives  us  this  anecdote.     Essay  on  Wills,  335. 

37 


578  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  457 

vision  or  strict  rule  of  law  may  operate  against  him  is  wise  to 
secure,  if  he  can,  a  submission  to  arbitration,  for  arbitrators 
are  inclined  to  be  governed  by  what  they  consider  the  broad 
principles  of  natural  justice,  rather  than  abstract  rules  of  law. 
The  law  recognizes  the  right  of  arbitrators  to  act,  within  lim- 
its, upon  their  conceptions  of  justice  and  excuses  a  departure 
from  rigid  technical  or  arbitrary  rules. ^  Where  the  contro- 
versy concerns  an  article  of  property,  as  a  house  or  a  patented 
machine,  and  the  dispute  turns  upon  the  question  whether  in 
constructing  it  the  contract  has  been  complied  with,  it  is  often 
expedient  to  submit  to  arbitration,  provided  competent  persons, 
skilled  in  the  particular  trade  which  the  controversy  concerns, 
can  be  procured  to  act  as  arbitrators,  since  such  persons  upon 
view  can  form  a  more  accurate  and  just  judgment  than  judges 
or  jurors  can  form  upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses.  It  has  been 
said,  however,  that  "in  building  contracts  the  owner  generally 
profits  and  the  mechanic  loses  by  arbitration,  for  jurors  are  for 
giving  the  workman  his  hire."  It  is  true,  as  every  one  will 
readily  conclude  on  reflection,  that  much  depends  upon  the 
intuation  of  the  parties  and  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  where 
arbitration  is  expedient  for  the  one  party  it  is  inexpedient  for 
the  other,  but  there  are,  nevertheless,  cases  where  it  is  better 
for  both  parties  to  call  in  arbitrators  to  settle  their  dispute.^ 

*  "And  it  is  expected  of  arbitrators  50  Miss.  284 ;    Mathews  v.  Miller,  25 

that  they  will  frame  their  decision  of  W.  Va.  817. 

matters  submitted  to  them  on  broad        "  Mr.  Chitty,  whose  advice  is  always 

views  of  justice  which  may  sometimes  valuable,  says,  "Other  cases  fit  to  be 

deviate  from  the  strict  rules  of  law."  referred,  are  frequently  those  where 

Brush  V.  Fisher,  70  Mich.  469,  S.  C.  14  it  would  be  impracticable  or  difficult 

Am.  St.  R.  510.     See,  generally,  John-  to   collect  or    keep   together  several 

son  V.  Noble,  13  N.  H.  286,  S.  C.  38  witnesses,  so  as  to  attend  upon  a  fixed 

Am.  Dec.  485;    Bigelow  v.  Newell,  10  day  at  ?w".st  prius;    or  of  disputes  be- 

Pick.  348;    Greenough  v.  Rolfe,  4  N.  tween  neighbors,  respecting  supposed 

H.  357;    Brown  u.  Clay,  31  Me.  518;  nuisances  by  building  or  otherwise,  to 

Spear  v.  Stacy,  26  Vt.  61  ;    Price  v.  ancient  rights  or  water-courses,  ways 

Brown,  98  N.Y.  388;  Sabin  r.  Angell,  or    other    property,  where  not  only 

44  Vt.  523;    Ruckman  v.  Ransom,  23  the  rights  of  the  parties  may  be  re- 

N.  J.  Eq.  118;    Burchell  v.  Marsh,  17  ferred,  and  the  damages,  but  also  the 

How.  (U.  S.)  344;  Adams  v.  Ringo,  79  question  whether,  upon  any  and  what 

Ky.211;  Memphis,  etc., Co.  w.  Scruggs,  terms,  and  subject  to  what  modiflca- 


§458 


ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 


579 


§  458.  When  arbitration  is  inexpedient. — As  we  said  in  the 
preceding  paragraph,  what  is  ex})edient  fur  the  one  party  is 
generally  inexpedient  for  his  adversary.  Thus,  if  the  one 
party  fears  that  his  witnesses  because  of  timidity,  or  by  reason 
of  other  causes,  will  not  acquit  themselves  well  in  open  court 
where  all  is  public,  he  will  prefer  arbitration,  since  the  pro- 
ceedings are  more  privately  and  quietly  conducted;  on  the 
other  hand,  the  party  who  believes  that  a  rigid  cross-examina- 
tion will  break  down  the  witnesses  of  his  adversary  and  not 
impair  the  testimony  of  his  own  will  prefer  a  trial  in  open 
court.  If  a  party  desires  that  the  rules  of  evidence  be  strictly 
observed  he  will  not  submit  his  case  to  arbitration,  for  arbi- 
trators are  not  bound  to  strictly  obey  the  rules  of  evidence,^ 
and  that  they  are  generally  quick  to  disregard  them  every 
lawyer  of  experience  knows.  It  is  possible  that  theoretically 
it  may  be  true  that  the  arbitrators  are  under  a  duty  to  adhere 
generally,  although  not  strictly,  to  the  rules  of  evidence,  but 
practically  they  are  at  liberty  to  do  what  they  choose,^  provided 


tions,  the  alleged  nuisance  shall  or  not 
be  continued.  So,  as  an  award  upon 
a  title  to  land  is  binding  on  all  the 
parties,  it  would  be  jiroper  in  questions 
of  right  to  small  property  to  refer  the 
matter  to  some  competent  person. 
So,  subjects  of  delicacy,  unfit  to  be  ex- 
posed to  public  investigation,  espe- 
cially between  near  relations,  should 
be  referred,  unless  some  injury  to 
character  has  been  occasioned."  2 
Chitty's  General  Practice,  75. 

•  Some  of  the  cases  carry  the  doctrine 
to  great  and  unreasonable  lengths. 
Thus,  in  one  case  it  was  said:  "We 
think  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  refer- 
ees might  receive  the  testimony  of  a 
legally  incompetent  witness  if  in  their 
judgment  the  justice  of  the  case  re- 
quired it.''  fuller  V.  Wheeloek,  10 
Pick.  135.  This  is,  perhaps,  a  stronger 
statement  of  the  abstract  rule  than 
the  authorities  warrant,  but  the  de- 
cided cases  go  very  far  in  the  same 


direction.  Boston  Water  Power  Co. 
V.  Gray,  6  Mete.  (Mass.)  131 ;  Hooper 
r.  Taylor,  39  Me.  224;  Maynard  v. 
Frederick,  7  Cush.  247 ;  Eyre's  Execu- 
tor, V.  Fennimore,  2  Penning.  932; 
Campbell  v.  Western,  3  Paige,  124; 
Pike  V.  Gage,  9  Foster  (N.  H.),  461; 
Bassett  v.  Cunningham,  9  Graft.  684; 
McCrae  v.  Robeson,  2  Murph.  (N. 
Car.)  127;  Chesley  r.  Chesley,  10  N. 
H.  327 ;  Shaifer  v.  Baker,  38  Ga.  135 ; 
Hollingsworth  p.  Leiper,  I  Dall.  161 ; 
Askew  r.  Kennetly,  1  Baily  (S.  Car.), 
46;  Fennimore  v.  Childs,  1  Ilalst.  (N. 
J.)  386. 

*An  English  author  says:  "Ques- 
tions relating  to  the  admissibility  of 
evidence  continually  arise  in  the 
course  of  the  proceedings  in  the  refer- 
ence and  call  for  the  arbitrator's  de- 
cision. In  determining  these  he  is 
not  at  liberty  to  follow  any  arbitrary 
principle  of  his  own,  but  he  is  bound 
by  the  same  rules  of  evidence  as  gov- 


580  THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT.  §  458 

that  their  conduct  in  ruling  on  the  evidence  is  not  so  outra- 
geous or  so  flagrantly  wrong  as  to  authorize  the  conclusion  that 
they  acted  corruptly  or  were  unduly  influenced  by  bias  or 
prejudice.^  Our  reason  for  saying  that  practically  they  can 
do  as  they  please,  is,  that  if  they  err,  be  it  ever  so  grievously, 
there  is,  even  under  the  English  rule  quoted  from  the  author 
referred  to  in  the  note,  no  power  of  review. ^  It  is  evident 
from  what  has  been  said  that  it  would  be  a  mistake  for  a  party  who 
desires  to  make  errors  in  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  evidence 
available  to  agree  to  an  ordinary  submission  to  arbitration. 
The  rule  that  arbitrators  may  decide  according  to  their  own 
broad  views  of  justice  without  due  regard  to  the  strict  rules  of 
law  makes  it  inexpedient  and  impolitic  for  a  party  who  expects 
to  stand  upon  a  strict  legal  right  to  leave  to  arbitrators  the  de- 
cision of  his  case.  Thus,  one  who  expects  to  stand  upon  the 
statute  of  frauds  where  the  equities  press  strongly  against  him 
would  be  unwise  to  refer  the  case  to  arbitrators,  and  so,  too, 
would  a  party  who,  under  like  circumstances,  relies  upon  the 
statute  of  limitations.  Where  a  party  desires  to  have  ques- 
tions of  law  fully  presented  for  review  it  is  always  safer  to  try 
by  the  court  or  jury  and  secure  a  direct  ruling  upon  each  ma- 
terial question  by  special  findings,  instructions,  special  ver- 
dicts or  the  like,  and  this  is  especially  true  in  cases  where  a 
forfeiture,  a  hard  bargain,  or  similar  matters  are  relied  upon 
as  the  cause  of  action  or  defense.  It  is  injudicious  to  refer  to 
arbitration  where  the  rights  of  sureties,  replevin  bail,  or  per- 
sons standing  in  similar  positions,  are  involved  unless  such 

ern  the  superior  courts."     Russell  on  that  we  speak  of  arbitrations  so  far 

the  Power  and  Duty  of  an  Arbitrator  only  as  it  is  necessary  in  considering 

(7th  Eng.  ed.),  199.     This  is  a  correct  matters  of  general  practice.     We  have 

statement  of  what  an  arbitrator  ought  treated  at  another  place  of  impeaching 

to  <lo,  at  least  as  a  rule,  but  it  is  doubt-  awards. 

ful  if  it  is  a  correct  statement  of  what  'Eastern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robertson,  6 

he  is  bound  to  do  even  under  the  En-  Man.  &  G.  38 ;  Armstrong  v.  Marshall, 

glish  rule.     H agger  ??.  Baker,  14  M.  &  4  Dowl.  593;    Perriman  v.  Steggall,  9 

^V_  9.  Bing.  679;    Campbell  t).  Twemlow,  1 

'  As  we  have  elsewhere  said  we  are  Price,  81 ;    Musselbrook  v.  Dunkin,  9 

speaking  of  common  law  arbitrations,  Bing.  605 ;    Slowman  v.  Wiggins,  6  C. 

not  of  statutory  ones,  and  we  may  add  B.  A.  276. 


§459 


ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 


581 


persons  fully  consent  or  agree  to  the  submission  or  are  parties 
to  it. 

§  459.  Who  may  submit, — As  a  general  rule,  any  person  of 
legal  capacity  to  contract  may  submit  to  arbitration;  but  he 
must  have  such  control  over  the  subject-matter  or  his  relations 
thereto  must  be  such  that  he  can  carry  out  the  award  when 
made.^  The  rule  applies  to  corporations  as  well  as  natural 
persons. 2  The  submission  by  an  infant  of  a  controversy  to 
arbitration  is  generally  regarded  as  voidalde/^  although  it  is 
sometimes  said  to  be  void.  Witliin  the  limitation  stated  in 
our  general  rule  attorneys  and  agents  generally  may  submit  a 
matter  to  arbitration  so  as  to  bind  their  principal  when  they 
have  either  express  or  implied  authority  so  to  do;*  but,  ordi- 
narily, no  such  authority  will  be  implied  from  the  mere  exis- 
tence of  a  general  agency.^  In  the  case  of  an  attorney,  however, 
the  submission  of  a  pending  controversy  to  arbitration  may  well 
be  presumed  to  be  within  the  scope  of  his  employment  to  pros- 


'  Bean  v.  Farnam,  6  Pick.  (Mass.) 
272;  Brady  v.  Mayor,  1  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
584;  Wyatt  v.  Benson,  23  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  327. 

» Brady  v.  Mayor,  1  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
584 ;  Alexandria  Canal  Co.  v.  Swann, 
5  How.  (U.  S.)  83;  Madison  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Griffin,  3  Ind.  277;  Wood  v.  Au- 
burn, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  160; 
Proprietors  v.  Frye,  5  Greenl.  (Me.) 
38;  City  of  Shawneetown  i\  Baker,  85 
111.  563;  Tuscaloosa  Bridget'.  Jemi- 
son,  33  Ala.  476;  Kane  v.  Fond  du 
Lac,  40  Wis.  495 ;  Dix  v.  Town,  19  Vt. 
262;  Remington  v.  Harrison  Co.,  12 
Bush.  (Ky.)  148;  District  Tp.  v.  Ran- 
kin, 70  la.  65,  29  N.  AV.  R.  806;  State 
V.  Ward,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  100;  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  ?'.  Scruggs,  50 
Miss.  284.  Compare  City  of  Somer- 
ville  V.  Dickerman,  127  Mass.  272; 
McCann  v.  Com'rs,  9  Neb.  324. 

^  Britton  r.  Williams,  6  Munf.  (Va.) 
453;    Baker  r.  Lovett,  6  Mass.  78,  S. 


C.  4  Am.  Dec.  88;  Jones  ».  Phoenix 
Bank,  8  N.  Y.  228;  Barnaby  r.  Bar- 
naby,  1  Pick.  (Mass.)  221.  See  and 
compare  Godfrey  v.  Wade,  6  Moore, 
488;  Evans  v.  Cogan,  2  P.  Wms.  450; 
Handy  v.  Cobb,  44  Miss.  699.  It  has 
been  held  that  those  who  have  capac- 
ity can  not  object  that  the  submission 
was  not  binding  because  some  of  the 
parties  were  infants.  Fortune  r.  Kil- 
lel)rew  (Texas),  21  S.  AV.  R.  98(i. 

♦  Buckland  v.  Conway,  16  Mass.  396; 
Schoff  r.  Bloomfield,  8Vt.  472;  Wilks 
V.  Back,  2  East,  142;  Henley  v.  Sofer, 
8  Barn.  &  C.  16;  Sargeant  r.  Clark, 
108  Pa.  St.  588;  McElreath  v.  Middle- 
ton,  89  Ga.  83,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  906. 

*Huber  v.  Zimmerman,  21  Ala.  488, 
S.  C.  56  Am.  Dec.  255;  Michigan  Cen- 
tral R.  R.  Co.  V.  Gougar,  55  111.  503; 
Trout  r.  Emmons,  29  111.  433,  S.  C.  81 
Am.  Dec.  326;  McPherson  r.  Cox,  86 
N.  Y.  472;  Cox  r.  Fay,  54  Vt.  446. 


582 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§459 


ecute  or  defend  the  action  in  any  legal  and  customary  mode, 
and  it  is  therefore  generally  held  that  the  right  to  submit  a 
pending  action  to  arbitration,  at  least  in  open  court,  will  be 
implied  from  his  employment.^  But  he  can  not  change  the 
terms  of  a  submission  made  by  his  client  without  the  latter 's 
consent. 2  Guardians^  and  executors  or  administrators*  gen- 
erally have  the  power  by  virtue  of  their  office  to  submit  matters 
respecting  the  estate  to  arbitration.  So  have  trustees,  in  some 
cases. ^  And  it  has  also  been  held  that  the  common  council  of 
a  city  or  the  selectmen  of  a  town  or  county  have  the  same 
power. *^  One  partner  has  no  authority  to  bind  his  co-partners 
by  the  submission  of  a  partnership  matter  to  arbitration,  with- 
out their  consent.'^     But  the  consent  of  the  other  partners  may 


1  McElreath  v.  Middleton,  89  Ga.  83, 
S.  C.  14  S.  E.  Rep.  906;  Buckland  v. 
Conway,  16  Mass.  396;  Morris  v. 
Grier,  76  N.  Car.  410;  Bingham  v. 
Guthrie,  19  Pa.  St.  418 ;  Brooks  u.  New 
Durham,  55  N.  H.  559;  Jones  v.  Hor- 
sey, 4  Md.  306,  S.  C.  59  Am.  Dec.  81 ; 
Lee  V.  Grimes,  4  Col.  185;  Beverly  v. 
Stephens,  17  Ala.  701 ;  Smith  v.  Bos- 
sard,  2  McCord's  Ch.  (So.  Car.)  406; 
Holker  V.  Parker,  7  Cranch  (U.  S.), 
436;  Smith  v.  Troup,  7  Com.  B.  757; 
Banfill  V.  Leigh,  8  T.  R.  571.  But  the 
right  to  make  such  a  submission  in 
pais,  outside  of  court,  is  denied  by 
some  of  the  courts.  McGinnis  v.  Cur- 
ry, 13  W.  Va.  29;  Daniels  v.  City  of 
New  London,  58  Conn.  156,  S.  C.  7  L. 
R.  A.  563;  Markley  v.  Amos,  8  Rich. 
L.  (So.  Car.)  468 ;  Scarborough  r.  Rey- 
nolds, 12  Ala.  252. 

^  Daniels  v.  City  of  New  London,  58 
Conn.  156,  S.  C.  7  L.  R.  A.  563;  Jen- 
kins V.  Gillespie,  10  Smed.  &  M. 
(Miss.)  31,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  7.32. 

'Weed  V.  Ellis,  3  Caines  (N.  Y.), 
253;  Strong  r.  Beroujon,  18  Ala.  168; 
Weston  V.  Stuart,  11  Me.  326;  Hutch- 
ins  V.  Johnson,  12  Conn.  376,  S.  C.  30 
Am.  Dec.  622;  McComb  v.  Turner,  14 
Smed.  &   M.  119;  Smith  v.  Kirkpat- 


rick,  58  Ind.  254.  But  not  a  mere 
guardian  ad  litem.  Fort  v.  Battle,  13 
Smedes  &  M.  133;  Hannum  v.  Wal- 
lace, 9  Humph.  (Tenn.)  129. 

«Wood  V.  Tunnichff,  74  N.  Y.  38; 
Kendall  v.  Bates,  35  Me.  357;  Ailing 
V.  Munson,  2  Conn.  691;  Yarborough 
V.  Leggett,  14  Texas,  677;  Jones  v. 
Deyer,  16  Ala.  221;  Chadbourn  v. 
Chadbourn,  9  Allen  (Mass.),  173; 
Bailey  v.  Dillworth,  10  Smed.  &  M. 
404,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  760.  Contra, 
Clark  V.  Hogle,  52  111.  427. 
'"  Brower  v.  Osterhout,  7  Watts.  &  S. 

(Pa.)  344;    Isaacs  v.   Beth  Hamedash 

Soc,  1  Hilt.  469;  Davies  v.  Ridge,  3 

Esp.  101.     Compare  Thomas  v.  Leach, 

2  Mass.  152. 
«  Campbell  v.  Upton,  113  Mass.  67; 

Buckland  v.   Conway,  16  Mass.  396; 

Dix  V.  Town,    19  Vt.  262;  People  v. 

Supervisors,   24   Hun    (N.   Y.),    413; 

Hine  v.  Stephens,  33  Conn.  497,  S.  C. 

89  Am.  Dec.  217.     Compare  Mann  v. 

Richardson,   66  111.   481;    Furbish  r. 

Hall,  8  Greenl.   (Me.)  315;   Town  of 

Griswold  v.  North  Stonington,  5  Conn. 

367. 

'  Tillinghast  v.  Gilmore,  17  R.  I.  413, 

22  Atl.  R.  942;  Buchanan  v.  Curry,  19 

Johns.  (N.  Y.)  137,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec. 


§  460  ARDITr;>TJ'j>:    \ND    AWARD.  583 

be  implied  from  circumstunccs  '  One  of  several  joint  owners, 
or  persons  jointly  interested,  can  not,  ordinarily,  bind  the  others 
by  a  submission  to  arbitration  without  special  authority.^  As 
to  the  effect  of  submissions  by  married  women,  or  by  husband 
and  wife,  much  depends  upon  the  statute  of  the  particular  ju- 
risdiction. Mr.  Morse  states  the  general  rules  upon  the  subject 
as  follows:  "The  wife  may  bind  herself  by  lier  own  sole  sub- 
mission in  respect  of  any  property  in  regard  to  which  she  has 
the  absolute  power  of  disposal  and  conveyance  by  her  own  in- 
dependent and  individual  action;  but  she  may  not  bind  her- 
self otherwise  than  in  respect  of  such  property.  The  husband 
may  bind  the  wife  to  any  undertaking,  provided  that  he  has 
the  power  to  carry  out  the  possible  terms  of  the  award  without 
her  joinder  or  acquiescence;  or  provided  that  the  law  would 
enforce  such  joinder  or  acquiescence,  if  it  were  legally  indis- 
pensable to  the  due  performance  of  the  award. "^  This  state- 
ment furnishes  a  general  rule  upon  the  subject,  but,  as  is  read- 
ily seen,  in  order  to  determine  the  law  in  any  particular  juris- 
diction, it  must  be  supplemented  by  a  consideration  of  the  local 
statute,  as  the  relations  of  husband  and  wife  and  the  right  of 
the  wife  to  enter  into  contracts  have  been  greatly  changed  by, 
legislative  enactments  of  a  recent  date. 

§  460.  What  may  be  submitted. — A  claim  which  is  illegal 
and  absolutely  forbidden  by  statute  can  not  lawfully  be  made 
the  subject  of  arbitration.*     It  is  not  necessary,  however,  that 

200;  Davis  v.  Berger,  54  Mich.  652;  Y.)    2a5 ;    Davis  r.  Berger,  54  Mich. 

Jones  V.  Bailey,  5  Cal.  345;  Martin  v.  652;  Russell  on  Arb.,  20. 

Thrasher,   40    Vt.   460;    Karthaus  v.  '  Eastman  v.  Burleigh,  2  N.  II.  484; 

Ferrer,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  222;    Backus  v.  Smith  r.  Smith,  4  Ran.l.  !)5;  Boyd  v.\ 

Coyne,  35  Mich.  5;  Stead  v.   Salt,  3  Magruder,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  761. 

Bing.  101.  In  several  States,  however,  ^  Morse  on  Arb.  and  Award,  26.   See, 

it  is  held  that  one  partner  may  make  also.  Palmer  t\  Davis,  28  N.  Y.  242; 

a  parol  submission  which  will  bind  McComb  r.  Turner,   14   Smed.  &  M. 

all.    Taylor  t'.  Coryell,  12  Serg.  &  R.  (Miss.)  119;  Weston  v.  Stuart,  11  Me. 

(Pa.)  243;  Southard  v.  Steele,  3  T.  B.  326;  Miller   v.   Moore,    7  Serg.    A  R. 

Hon.  (Ky.)  435;  Hallack  r.  March,  25  (Pa.)  164;  Taylor  r.  Smith.  03  .^[ich. 

111.  48;  Wilcox  v.  Singletary,  Wright  160,  S.  C.  52  N.  W.  R.  lllS;   Kyd  on 

(Ohio),  420.  Awards.  46.  47. 

^Mackay  w.  Bloodgood,9Johns.  (N.  ♦Hall  v.  Kiiiuuor,  61  Mich.  269,  S. 


584 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§460 


a  good  cause  of  action  should  exist  ^  or  that  any  suit  should 
actually  be  pending  between  the  parties.^  It  is  sufficient  that 
the  claim  or  matter  submitted  to  arbitration  is  in  doubt  and 
that  it  is  or  may  become  the  subject  of  a  controversy  between 
the  parties  interested.^  Within  these  limitations  almost  any 
claim  or  matter  in  dispute  may  be  submitted  to  arbitration.* 
At  one  time  controversies  concerning  real  estate  could  not  be 
submitted  to  arbitration,  but  even  this  exception  no  longer  ex- 
ists.^ 


C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  575 ;  Wyatt  v.  Benson, 
23  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  327;  Harrington  v. 
Brown,  9  Allen  (Mass.),  579. 

'Mayo  V.  Gardner,  4  Jones,  359; 
Findly  v.  Ray,  5  Jones,  125;  O'Keson 
V.  Barclay,  2  Penr.  &  W.  531 ;  Dilks  v. 
Hammond,  86  Ind.  563. 

'Titus  V.  Scantling,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
89;  Brown  v.  Wheeler,  17  Conn.  345, 
S.  C.  44  Am.  Dec.  550;  Robbins  v. 
Clark,  129  Mass.  145;  Lauman  v. 
Young,  31  Pa.  St.  306. 
'  3  Robbins  v.  Clark,  129  Mass.  145; 
Lauman  v.  Young,  31  Pa.  St.  306; 
Findly  v.  Ray,  5  Jones,  125.  But  the 
matter  should  be  in  doubt.  Garr  v. 
Gomez,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  649;  Thayer 
V.  Bacon,  3  Allen  (Mass.),  163,  S.  C. 
80  Am.  Dec.  59;  Cothran  v.  Knox,  13 
S.  Car.  496;  Stose  v.  Heissler,  120  111. 
433,  S.  C.  60  Am.  R.  563;  Atkinson  v. 
Dailey,  107  Ind.  117 ;  Hale  v.  Handy, 
26  N.  H.  206;  Kelly  v.  Crawford,  5 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  785. 

*  Davenport  v.  Fulkerson,  70  Mo. 
417;  Jones  v.  Binns,  27  Miss.  373; 
Richards  v.  Holt,  61  la.  529  (whether 
a  place  was  a  nuisance  and  should  be 
abated) ;  Cox  v.  Jagger,  2  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  638,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  522  (dower 
claim) ;  Stout  v.  Woodward,  71  N.  Y. 
90;  Jones  v.  Boston  Mill  Corp.,  65 
Pick.  (Mass.)  148;  Page  v.  Foster,  7 
N.  H.  392  (questions  as  to  boundary 
lines  in  last  three  preceding  cases)  ; 


Bowden  v.  Crow,  2  Texas  Civil  App. 
591,  S.  C.  21  S.  W.  Rep.  612  (amount 
due  for  improving  land) ;  Enright  v. 
Montauk  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  61  Hun  (N. 
Y.),  625  (amount  due  on  insurance 
policy)  ;  Fulmore  v.  McGeorge,  91 
Cal.  611,  S.  C.  28  Pac.  Rep.  92  (part- 
nership matters  and  accounts) ;  Fow- 
ler V.  Jackson,  86  Ga.  337,  S.  C.  12  S. 
E.  R.  811,  and  Fitch  v.  Constantine 
Hydraulic  Co.,  44  Mich.  74  (damages 
for  overflowing  land)  ;  McCracken  v. 
Clark,  31  Pa.  St.  498;  Johnsons.  Noble, 
13  N.  H.  286,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  485 
(question  of  law) ;  Knoche  v.  Railroad 
Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  471 ;  McBride  v.  Ha- 
gan,  1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  326. 

*  Cox  V.  Jagger,  2  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  638, 
S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  522 ;  Blair  v.  Wal- 
lace, 21  Cal.  317;  Penniman  v.  Rod- 
man, 13  Mete.  (Mass.)  382;  Munro  t. 
Allaire,  2  Caines  (N.  Y.),  320;  Shack- 
elford V.  Purket,  2  A.  K.  Marsh  (Ky.), 
435,  S.  C.  12  Am.  Dec.  422;  Davis  v. 
Havard,  15  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  165,  S.C. 
16  Am.  Dec.  537.  See,  however,  as  to 
oral  agreement  to  arbitrate  concern- 
ing real  estate.  Fort  v.  Allen,  110  N. 
Car.  183,  S.  C.  14  S.  E.  R.  685;  Stark 
V.  Cannady,  3  Litt.  (Ky.)  399,  S.  C.  14 
Am.  Dec.  76.  The  title  to  land  can 
not  be  determined  by  arbitration  un- 
der the  Michigan  statute.  Lang  v. 
SalHotte,  7  L.  R.  A.  720. 


§  401 


ARHITUATION    AND    AWARD. 


585 


§  4G1.  Revocation  of  submission. — A  voluntary  submission, 
not  under  a  statute  or  rule  of  court,  may  be  revoked  by  either 
party  at  any  time  before  the  award  is  niade.^  This,  it  seems, 
is  true  even  where  it  is  expressly  stipulated  in  the  agreement 
to  submit  to  arbitration  that  it  shall  be  irrevocable.'-  And 
where  no  final  award  had  been  rendered,  it  was  held  in  a  re- 
cent case  that  either  party  might  revoke  the  submission,  al- 
though an  interlocutory  determination  as  to  some  of  the  items 
submitted  to  the  arbitrators  had  already  been  made.'^  But  af- 
ter notice  of  a  final  award  it  is  too  late  to  revoke  the  submis- 
sion.'* No  particular  form  of  revocation  is  necessary,  but  it 
must  be  absolute  and  unconditional.^  It  should  conform  to 
the  submission  and  be  of  the  same  character,  that  is,  if  the 
submission  is  under  seal  or  in  writing  the  revocation  should 
also  be  under  seal  or  in  writing,  but  if  the  submission  is  verl>al 
the   revocation   may  also  be  oral.*"'     Notice  of  the  revocation 

'  Jones  t'.  Harris,  59  Miss.  214;  Cole-  part  of  an  agreement  containing  other 

man  v.  Grubb,  28  Pa.  St.  393;    People  terms  was  lield  irrevocal)le  in  a  recent 

V.  Nash,  111  N.  Y.  310,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  case  after  such  terms  luul  been  com- 

R.  747;    Dilks  v.  Hammond,  86  Ind.  pHed  with  and  executed.     McKenna 

563;  Seelyu.Pelton,63Ill.  101;  Davis  i'.  Lyle,  155  Pa.  St.  599,  S.  C.  26  Atl. 

V.   Maxwell,   27  Ga.  .368;    Marsh    v.  R.  777.     An  agreement  that  if  either 

Packer,  20  Vt.  198;    Tyson  v.  Robin-  party  fails  to  appear  the  arbitration 

son,  3  Ired.  (N.  Car.)  333;    Peters  v.  may  proceed  ex  parte  does  not  render 


Craig,  6  Dana  (Ky.),  307;  Keyes  v. 
Fulton,  42  Vt.  159.  Compare  :McGee- 
hen  r.  Duffield,  5  Pa.  St.  497  ;  AVilliams 
V.  Danziger,  91  Pa.  St.  232;  Bank  v. 
Widner,  11  Paige  (N.  Y.),  529,  S.  C. 
43  Am.  Dec.  768.  Where  several  on 
one  side  make  a  joint  submission  it 
seems  that  the  revocation  must  be  by 
all.  Robertson  v.  McNiel,  12  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  578 ;  Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me. 
251 ;  Greason  v.  Keteltas,  17  N.  Y.  491. 
'  Tobey  v.  County  of  Bristol,  3  Story 


the  submission  irrevocable.  Boston, 
etc.,  Corp.  V.  Nashua,  etc.,  Corp.,  139 
Mass.  463,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R.  751. 

'  Boston,  etc.,  Corp.  v.  Nashua,  etc., 
Corp.,  139  Mass.  463,  S.  C.  31  N.  E.  R. 
751. 

♦Coon  r.  Allen,  156  Mass.  113,  S.C. 
30  N.  E.  R.  83;  Clement  r.  Hadlock, 
13  N.  H.  185;  Marsh  r.  Packer,  20  Vt. 
198;  Tobey  v.  County  of  Bristol,  3 
Story,  800. 

*Goodwine  r.  Miller,  32    Ind.   419; 


(U.  S.),  800;  Power  ?'.  Power,  7  Watts  Steere  r.  Brownell,  113  111.  415.  It  is 
(Pa.),  205;  Vynior's  Case,  8  Coke,  sufficient,  however,  where  ?  written 
162.  That  which  is  revocable  in  its  revocation  shows  an  intention  to  re- 
nature  can  not  be  made  irrevocable  voke.  Frets  r.  Frets.  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
by  an  executory  agreement.     People  S35. 

V.  Nash,  111  N.  Y.  310,  S.  C.  7  Am.  St.  "  Shroyer  v.  Bash.  57  Ind.  349 ;    Mc- 

R.  747.      But  a  submission   forming  Farlane    v.  Cushman.    21    Wis.   401; 


586 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


462 


must  be  given  to  the  arbitrators.^  Even  where  there  is  no  ex- 
press revocation,  it  may  be  implied, ^  or  the  law  itself  may  so 
operate  as  to  revoke  the  submission.^  Notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  a  voluntary  submission  is  revocable,  one  who  revokes 
it  against  the  consent  of  the  other  party  is  liable  in  damages 
for  breach  of  the  contract.*  Thus  far  we  have  been  consider- 
ing the  revocation  of  voluntary  submissions  outside  of  court. 
A  reference  under  a  rule  of  court  is  irrevocable  without  the 
consent  of  the  court, ^  and  in  many  States  a  statutory  submis- 
sion is  also  irrevocable.^ 

§  462.    Ratification  of  submission. — An  unauthorized  sub- 
mission may  be  ratified.     Thus,  where  an  agent  enters  into  a 


Evans  v.  Cheek,  3  Hayw.  (Tenn.)  42; 
Relyea  v.  Ramsay,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
602 ;  Van  Antwerp  v.  Stewart,  8  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  125;  Sutton  v.  Tyrrell,  10  Vt. 
91;  Wallis  v.  Carpenter,  13  Allen 
(Mass.),  19. 

1  Allen  V.  Watson,  16  Johns.  (N.Y.) 
205;    Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me.  251 
Buckwalter  v.  Russell,  119  Pa.  St.  495 

*  Peters  v.  Craig,  6  Dana  (Ky.),  307 
Rollins  V.  Townsend,  118  Mass.  224 
Allen  V.  Galpin,  9  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  246 
Kimball  v.  Gilman,  60  N.  H.  54;  Paul- 
sen V.  Manske,  24  111.  App.  95.     Com- 
pare  Knaus  v.  Jenkins,  40  N.  J.  L. 
288,  S.  C.  29  Am.  R.  237 ;  Bray  v.  En- 
glish, 1  Conn.  498. 

3  Thus,  death  of  one  of  the  parties 
may  revoke  the  submission.  Mar- 
seilles V.  Kenton,  17  Pa.  St.  238;  Dex- 
ter V.  Young,  40  N.  H.  130;  Whitfield 
V.  Whitfield,  8  Ired.  L.  (N.  Car.)  163, 
S.  C.  47  Am.  Dec.  350 ;  Mclntire  v. 
Morris,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  90.  And 
so  may  the  death  of  an  arbitrator. 
Sutton  V.  Tyrrell,  10  Vt.  91 ;  Potter  v. 
Sterrett,  24  Pa.  St.  411.  But  death  of 
a  party  or  an  arbitrator  after  the 
award  will  not  operate  as  a  revoca- 
tion. Bash  V.  Christian,  77  Ind.  290; 
Cartledge  v.  Cutliff,  21  Ga.  1.     Insan- 


ity of  a  party  may  operate  as  a  revoca- 
tion. Morse  on  Arb.  and  Award,  235. 
So  may  the  marriage  of  a  party  who  is 
a  feme  sole.  Sutton  v.  Tyrrell,  10  Vt. 
91 ;  Abbott  v.  Keith,  11  Vt.  525 ;  Bailey 
V.  Stewart,  3  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  560,  S. 
C.  39  Am.  Dec.  50.  Or  the  refusal  of 
the  arbitrator  to  act.  Chapman  v. 
Seccomb,  36  Me.  102;  Brown  v. 
Welcker,  1  Cold.  197 ;  Wilson  v.  Cross, 
7  Watts  (Pa.),  495;  Crofoot  v.  Allen, 
2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  494. 

*  Dexter  v.  Young,  40  N.  H.  130; 
Blaisdell  v.  Blaisdell,  14  N.  H.  78; 
Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me.  251 ;  Call  v. 
Hagar,  69  Me.  521 ;  Pond  v.  Harris, 
113  Mass.  114;  Hawley  v.  Hodge,  7 
Vt.  237 ;  Miller  v.  Junction  Canal  Co., 
53  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  590. 

^Haskell  v.  Whitney,  12  Mass.  47; 
Masterson  v.  Kidwell,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 
669;  Tyson  v.  Robinson,  3  Ired.  L.  (N. 
Car.)  333;  Cumberland  v.  North  Yar- 
mouth, 4  Greenl.  (Me.)  459;  Bray  v. 
English,  1  Conn.  498;  Frets  v.  Frets, 
1  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  335;  Dexter  w.  Young, 
40  N.  H.  130. 

«  Shroyer  v.  Bash,  57  Ind.  349 ;  Bash 
V.  Christian,  84  Ind.  180;  Bloomer  v. 
Sherman,  5  Paige  (N.Y.),575;  Mont- 
gomery Co.  V.  Carey,  1  Ohio  St.  463. 


§463  AllBITKATh'.N     .\  M^    AWAKO.  587 

submission  without  authority,  the  principal  may  bind  himself 
by  a  subsequent  ratification.^  Appearing  before  the  arbitrators 
and  taking  part  in  the  ]>rocee(lings  without  objection  will 
amount  to  a  ratification.'-  So,  the  acce[»tunce  of  payment  or 
other  fruit  of  the  award  will  amount  to  a  ratification  and  estop 
the  principal  from  denying  that  the  submission  was  authorized.'^ 
But  it  has  been  held  that  the  principal  can  not  ratify  an  unau- 
thorized submission,  after  an  award  in  his  favor,  so  as  to  en- 
able him  to  enforce  it  against  the  other  party,  for  to  permit  him 
to  do  so  would  give  him  the  right  to  take  all  the  chances  of 
success  without  danger  of  loss  in  case  of  defeat  by  adopting  the 
award  if  in  his  favor  and  repudiating  it  if  adverse.^ 

§  463.   Specific  performance  of  ao^reement  to  submit. — The 

general  rule  is  well  settled  that  specific  performance  of  an  agree- 
ment to  submit  to  arbitration  will  not  be  enforced.^  As  already 
seen,  the  party  refusing  to  carry  out  the  agreement  may  be 
held  liable  for  damages  in  an  action  at  law  as  for  breach  of 
contract,'''  and  this  is  usually  the  only  remedy  of  the  party  ag- 
grieved. There  are,  however,  exceptional  cases  in  which  equity 
will  afford  relief.'  Thus,  where  a  lease  provided  that  the  lessee 
should  have  the  privilege  of  erecting  a  house  upon  the  leased 
land,  and  that,  at  the  end  of  the  term,  the  lessor  should  elect 

'  Detroit!'.  Jackson,  1  Doug.  (Mich.)  3  Story,  800;  Milnes  v.  Gery,  14  Ves. 

106 ;  Lowenstein  v.  Mcintosh,  37  Barb.  Jr.  400 ;  note  to  Kinney  v.  Baltimore, 

(N.  Y.)  2ol ;  Isaacs  v.  Beth  Hamedash  etc.,  Ass'n,  35  W.  Va.  385,  S.  C.  15  L. 

Soc,  1  Ililt.  469;  Smith  v.  Sweeny,  35  R.  A.  142. 

N.  Y.  291.  ^Antt',  §  461.     See,  also,  Livingston 

'Memphis,etc.,R.R.  Co.  T.Scruggs,  v.  Ralli,  5  El.  &  Bl.  132;  Ilaggart  c. 

50  Miss.  284.     See,  also,  Seely  v.  Pel-  Morgan,  5  N.  Y.  422,  S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec. 

ton,  63  111.  101.  350;  Corbin  v.  Adams,  76  Va.  58 ;  Ore- 

'  Furber  v.  Chamberlain,  29  N.  H.  gon,  etc..  Bank   v.  American  Murtg. 

405 ;  Perry  v.  Mulligan,  58  Ga.  479.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  22. 

*  Eastman  V.  Burleigh,  2  N.  H.  484.  ^Tscheider  v.   Biddle,   4   Dill.   55: 

^Greason  v.  Keteltas,  17  N.  Y.  491;  Orne  v.  Sullivan,  3  How.  (Miss.)  161, 

Noyes   v.  Marsh,   123   Mass.  286;  St.  S.  C.  34  Am.  Dec.  74;  Black  r.  Rogers, 

Louis  r.  St.  Louis  Gas  Co.,  70  I\Io.  69;  75  Mo.  441  ;  Pomeroy  Spec.  Perform., 

King  !'.  Howard,  27  Mo.  21 ;  Copper  v.  §§  148-152 ;  AVaterinan  Spec.  Perform., 

Wells,  IN.  J.Eq.lO;  Hopkins  r.  Gil-  §44;  Wood's  Landlord  and  Tenant, 

man,  22  Wis.  476;    Corbin  r.  A.lams,  673. 
76  Va.  58 ;  Tobey  v.  County  of  Bristol, 


588 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§464 


to  renew  the  lease,  or  buy  the  buikling,  or  sell  the  lot  at  a  price 
to  be  fixed  by  disinterested  appraisers,  it  was  held  that,  the 
lessor  having  failed  to  elect,  the  lessee  might  elect  to  purchase 
the  lot,  and,  upon  the  refusal  of  the  lessor  to  join  in  the  refer- 
ence to  fix  the  price,  the  lessee  was  entitled  to  equitable  relief.^ 

§  464.  Effect  of  ag:reement  upon  ri^ht  to  sue. — A  mere  ex- 
ecutory agreement  to  submit  a  controversy  or  matter  in  dispute 
to  arbitration  is  not  a  bar  to  an  action  or  suit  in  court. ^  A 
stipulation  in  an  insurance  policy  or  other  contract  to  submit 
any  controversy  which  may  arise  thereunder  to  arbitration 
will  not  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts.^  But  a  submission 
to  arbitration,  in  order  to  determine  the  amount  of  the  loss  or 
the  like,  may  be  made  a  condition  precedent  to  the  institution 


1  Coles  V.  Peck,  96  Ind.  333.  To  the 
same  effect,  and  similar  in  its  facts,  is 
the  case  of  Tscheider  v.  Biddle,  4  Dill. 
55. 

'Laflin  v.  Railroad  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 
859,  and  authorities  cited  in  the  fol- 
lowing notes.  The  Pennsylvania  doc- 
trine, as  will  be  seen  from  an  examina- 
tion of  the  case  of  Commercial  Un., 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Hocking,  2  Am.  St.  R.  562, 
and  other  decisions  there  referred  to, 
is  peculiar. 

'Kinney  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
15  L.  R.  A.  142,  and  note ;  Hamilton 
V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  137  U.  S.  370,  S.  C. 
11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  133;  note  to  Boyd  v. 
Vanderbilt  Ins.  Co.,  5  Lewis'  Am.  R. 
R.  &  Corp.  R.  6;  The  Excelsior,  123 
U.  S.  40;  Robinson  v.  George's  Ins. 
Co.,  17  Me.  131,  S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec.  239 ; 
Numey  v.  Firemen's  Ins.  Co.,  63 
Mich.  633;  Leach  v.  Republic  Ins. 
Co.,  58  N.  H.  245;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  ■;;.  Donnegan,  111  Ind.  179; 
Haggart  v.  Morgan,  5  N.  Y.  422,  S.  C. 
55  Am.  Dec.  350;  notes  to  Allegre  v. 
Maryland  Ins.  Co.,  14  Am.  Dec.  296; 
Nettleton  v.  Gridley,  56  Am.  Dec.  384, 
and  Commercial  Un.  Assurance  Co.  v. 
Hocking,  2  Am.  St.  R.  562,  566,  in  all 


of  which  the  authorities  are  collected 
and  reviewed.  So  it  is  generally  held 
that  mutual  benefit  societies  and  the 
like  can  not  make  their  own  tribunals 
final  judges  of  the  claims  of  benefici- 
aries and  thus  prevent  an  appeal  to 
the  courts.  Bauer  v.  Sampson  Lodge, 
102  Ind.  262 ;  Supreme  Council  v.  For> 
singer,  125  Ind.  52,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St. 
R.  196;  Supreme  Council  v.  Garrigus, 
104  Ind.  133;  Dolan  v.  Court  of  Good 
Samaritan,  128  Mass.  437;  Whitney  v. 
Nat.  Masonic  Ace.  Ass'n  (Minn.),  54 
N.  W.  R.  184;  Poultney  v.  Backman, 
10  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  252;  Stephen- 
son V.  Ins.  Co.,  54  Me.  70;  Home  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Morse,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.)  445. 
But  compare  Anacosta  Tribe  v.  Mur- 
back,  13  Md.  91;  Osceola  Tribe  v. 
Schmidt,  57  Md.  98;  Fritz  v.  Muck,  62 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  70;  Foram  v.  How- 
ard Ben.  Ass'n,  4  Pa.  St.  519;  Van 
Poucke  V.  Netherland,  etc..  Society 
(Mich.),  29  N.  W.  R.  863.  A  provis- 
ion attempting  to  entirely  oust  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  courts  is  said  to  be 
void.  German  Am.  Ins.  Co.  t'.  Ether- 
ton,  25  Neb.  505 ;  Wood  v.  Humphrey, 
114  Mass.  185 ;  Kistler  v.  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  88  Ind.  460. 


§464 


ARHH  llAl  1(JN    AND    AWAUl). 


iS9 


of  a  suit,  and  where  such  is  the  case  neither  party  can  success- 
fully maintain  an  action'  or  suit  until  he  lius  performed  the 
condition  on  his  part.'  Sucli  a  provision  may,  however,  be 
waived  by  the  act  of  the  party  otherwise  entitled  to  the  benefit 
thereof.^  And  where  an  insurance  policy  provided  for  arbi- 
tration as  to  the  amount  of  the  loss  and  gave  the  company  the 
right  to  take  the  property  at  the  value  fixed  by  the  arbitrators, 
it  was  held  that  the  assured,  by  revoking  the  submission,  to 
which  he  had  agreed,  and  selling  tlie  property,  forfeited  the 
policy. "*  As  to  the  effects  of  the  submission  of  a  pending  ac- 
tion or  suit  to  arbitration,  there  is  a  sharp  conflict  among  the 
authorities.  By  some  it  is  held  that  a  general  submission  op- 
erates as  a  discontinuance  of  the  action,  while  in  others  the 
contrary  is  held.  The  authorities  upon  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion are  collected  and  reviewed  by  Mr.  Freeman,  in  a  note  to 
one  of  the  leading  cases,  in  the  American  Decisions.^ 


'  Delaware,  etc., Canal  Co.  v.  Penna., 
etc.,  Coal  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  250;  Seward 
V.  Rochester,  109  N.  Y.  164;  Hamilton 
«.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  137 U.  S.  370 ;  Hutch- 
inson v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Ass'n  (Mass.), 
10  L.  R.  A.  558;  Holmes  v.  Ricket,  56 
Cal.  307,  S.  C.  38  Am.  R.  54 ;  Birming- 
ham, etc.,  Ins.  Co.  r.  Pulver,  126  111. 
329;  Gere  i'.  Council  Bluffs  Ins.  Co., 
67  la.  272 ;  ChippeMa  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  80  Mich.  116;  note 
to  German  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gray,  2  Lewis' 
Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  459,  471  ;  note 
to  Kinney  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ass'n,  15 
L.  R.  A.  142,  143;  Hood  v.  Hartshorn, 
100  Mass.  119,  S.  C.  1  Am.  St.  R.  89; 
Berry  v.  Carter,  19  Kan.  135;  Avery 
r.  Scott,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  811;  Dawson  v. 
Fitzgerald,  L.  R.,  1  Ex.  Div.  257,  S. 
C.  3  Cent.  L.  Jour.  477 ;  Babbage  v. 
Coulbourn,  L.  R.,  9  Q.  B.  Div.  235, 
237,  note.  Many  other  authorities  are 
collected  and  reviewed  in  the  elabor- 
ate note  to  Commercial  Un.,  etc.,  Co. 
r.  Hocking,  2  Am.  St.  R.  562,  569. 
See,  also,  Lafond  v.  Deems,  81  N.  Y. 


508;  Chamberlain  v.  Lincoln,  129 
Mass.  70;  Harrington  i\  Working- 
men's  Ben.  Ass'n,  70  Ga.  340;  Mc- 
Alees  V.  Supreme  Sitting  (Pa.),  13 
Atl.  R.  755;  Supreme  Council  r.  For- 
singer,  125  Ind.  52,  S.  C.  21  Am.  St. 
R. 196. 

'  Farnum  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  83  Cal. 
246,  S.  C.  2  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  it  Corp. 
R.  72;  Bailey  r.  .Etna  Ins.  Co.,  77 
Wis.  336,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  440;  INIentz 
V.  Armenia  Ins.  Co.,  79  Pa.  St.  478,  S. 
C.  21  Am.  R.  80;  Smith  v.  Alker,  102 
N.  Y.  87;  Hutchinson  t».  Liverpool, 
etc.,  Ins.  Co.  (Mass.),  10  L.  R.  A. 
558,  and  note. 

•"' Morley  r.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 
a5  Mich.  210,  S.  C.  48  N.  W.  R.  502. 

*Nettleton  r.  Gridley,  56  Am.  Dec. 
378,  381.  See.  also,  Callinan  r.  Port 
Huron,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  61  Mich.  15,  S. 
C.  27  N.  W.  R.718;  Boyden  r.  Lamb, 
152  Mass.  416,  S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  (K)9; 
Draghicevich  r.  Vulicevich,  76  Cal. 
378,  S.  C.  18  Pac.  R.  406. 


590 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§  465 


§  465.  Who  may  be  arbitrators.— It  has  been  said  in  gen- 
eral terms  that  any  person  may  be  an  arbitrator,  and  that 
neither  natural  nor  legal  disabilities  will  necessarily  dis- 
qualify him  if  he  is  chosen  by  the  parties  with  full  knowl- 
edge of  his  disability.^  Arbitrators  should,  however,  be  dis- 
interested and  impartial.  If  the  person  chosen  as  arbitrator 
is  personally  interested  in  the  matter  in  controversy,  related  to 
one  of  the  parties,  or  prejudiced  in  his  favor,  and  this  is  un- 
known to  the  other  party,  the  latter  may  object  to  him  as  in- 
competent as  soon  as  he  discovers  such  fact.^  The  objection 
should  be  made  at  the  earliest  opportunity.^  Parties  may,  if 
they  choose,  select  an  interested  or  prejudiced  person  or  a  rela- 
tive,^ and  if,  with  knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  a  party  fails  to 
object  at  the  proper  time,  he  will  be  deemed  to  have  waived 
all  objections  to  the  competency  of  the  arbitrator.^  A  remote 
or  trifling  interest  not  likely  to  influence  the  arbitrator  in  any 
way  will  not  disqualify  him.^ 


'  See  Evans  v.  Ives,  15  Phila.  (Pa.) 
635 ;  Galloway  t\Webb,  Hardin  (Ky.) , 
318;  Russell  on  Arb.,  115;  Morse  on 
Arb.  &  Award,  99. 

*  Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me.  251 ;  Pool 
V.  Hennessy,  39  la.  192,  S.  C.  18  Am. 
R.  44;  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canton 
Co.,  70  Md.  405,  S.  C.  17  Atl.  R.  394; 
Rand  v.  Redington,  13  N.  H.  72; 
Stephenson  v.  Oatman,  3  Lea  (Tenn.), 
462;  Leonard  v.  Mulry,  93  N.  Y.  392; 
Baird  v.  Mayor,  74  N.  Y.  382;  Connor 
V.  Simpson,  104  Pa.  St.  440,  S.  C.  7 
Atl.  R.  161  (partner) ;  Spearman  v. 
Wilson,  44  Ga.  473;  Beattie  v.  Hilli- 
ard,  55  N.  H.  428;  Bowen  v.  Steere,  6 
R.  I.  251 ;  Wheeling  Gas  Co.  v.  City 
of  Wheeling,  5  W.Va.  448 ;  Li  re  Bliss, 
39  Hun  (X.  Y.),  594;  Bash  i'.  Chris- 
tian, 77  Ind.  290;  In  re  Baring  Broth- 
ers &  Co.,  61  L.  J.  Q.  B.  704. 

'Robb  V.  Brachman,  38  Ohio  St. 
423;  Combs  v.  Wyckoff,  1  Caines  (N. 
Y.),  147. 

*  Strong  V.  Strong,  9  Cush.  (Mass.) 


560;  Howard  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  24  Fla.  560,  S.  C.  5  So.  R.  356; 
Morgan  v.  Birnie,9  Bing.672 ;  Johnston 
V.  Cheape,  5  Dow  P.  C.  247 ;  Williams 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  112  Mo.  463, 
S.  C.  20  S.  W.  R.  631 ;  2  Chitty's  Gen. 
Pr.  83. 

*Fox  V.  Hazelton,  10  Pick.  (Mass.) 
275;  Bell  v.  Vernooy,  18  Hun  (N.Y.), 
125;  WheeUng  Gas  Co.  v.  City  of 
Wheeling,  5  W.  Va.  448;  Dougherty 
V.  McWhorter,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  239; 
Monongahela,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fenlon,  4 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  205;  Davis  v.  For- 
shee,  34  Ala.  107 ;  Perry  v.  Moore,  2 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.),  32  (knowledge 
of  attorney  held  knowledge  of  party). 

*  Fisher  v.  Towner,  14  Conn.  26; 
Wallis  V.  Carpenter,  13  Allen  (Mass.), 
19 ;  Bullman  v.  North  British,  etc.,  Co., 
1.59  Mass.  118,  S.C.  34  N.  E.  R.  169 ;  Leo- 
minster r.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7 
Allen  (Mass.),  38;  Goodrich  v.  Hul- 
bert,  123  Mass.  190,  S.  C.  25  Am. 
R.  60 ;    Cheney  v.  Martin,  127  Mass. 


§406 


ARBITKATION    AND    AWAKD. 


5lil 


§  4(36.  Arbitrators  imist  iU't  t(>;::('tlu'r. —  Tnlcss  it  is  other- 
wise provided  all  the  arbitrators  to  whuui  u  private  controversy 
is  submitted  must  act  together.'  N(j  arbitrator  has  any  au- 
thority to  delegate  his  power  and  duty  as  such  or  appoint  a 
substitute;  he  must  act  in  person.'-  But  merely  ministerial 
duties  may  generally  be  delegated.'^  And  the  substitution  of 
an  arbitrator,  in  case  one  of  those  first  chosen  refuses  to  act, 
may  be  provided  for  in  the  submission.^  The  arbitrators 
should  act  together  throughout  all  the  proceedings,  but  if  they 
all  agree  upon  the  final  award  the  fact  that  they  were  not 
unanimous  in  their  o[)inions  upon  every  incidental  question 
that  arose  prior  to  the  award  is  immaterial.^  If  tlie  award  is 
silent  as  to  whether  they  all  met  and  acted  together  throughout 
the  proceedings  it  will  nevertheless  be  presumed  that  they  did 
so.'''     An  award  by  a  majority  may  be  provided  for  in  the  sub- 


304;  Kane  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  40  Wis. 
49.3 ;  Chicago, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  ^\  Hughes, 
28  Mich.  186.  But  see  Woodworth  v. 
McGovern,  52  Vt.  318;  Beddow  v. 
Beddow,  L.  R.,  9  Ch.  Div.  89. 

'  Green  v.  Miller,  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
39,  S.  C.  5  Am.  Dec.  184;  Moore  v. 
Ewing,  Coxe  (N.  J.),  144,  S.  C.  1  Am. 
Dec.  195;  Hoffman  r.  Hoffman,  26  N, 
J.  L.  175;  Patterson  v.  Leavitt,  4 
Conn.  50,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  98 ;  Net- 
tleton  V.  Gridley,  21  Conn.  531,  S.  C. 
56  Am.  Dec.  378;  Vessel  Owners', 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Taylor,  126  111.  250,  S.  C. 
18  N.  E.  R.  663;  Smith  v.  Smith,  28 
111.  56;  McCrary  v.  Harrison,  36  Ala. 
577  ;  Byard  v.  Harkrider,  108  Ind.  376 ; 
Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mounts,  7 
Ind.  669;  Franklin,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Pratt, 
101  Mass.  359;  Doherty  v.  Doherty, 
148  Mass.  367,  S.  C.  19  N.  E.  R.  352; 
Hills  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  129  Mass.  345 ; 
Leavitt  v.  Windsor  Land,  etc.,  Co.,  54 
Fed.  R.  439 ;  Godfrey  v.  Knodle,  44  111. 


App.  638 ;  Oakley  v.  Anderson,  93  N. 
Car.  108;  Kent  r.  French,  76  la.  187, 
S.  C.  40  N.  W.  R.  713. 

»  Little  r.  Newton,  9  Dowl.  P.  C.  437 ; 
Kingston  v.  Kincaitl,  1  Wash.  (U.  S.) 
448;  Tomlin  r.  Fordwich,  5  Ad.  &  K. 
147;  Lingood  v.  Eade,  2  Atk.  oO\. 
See,  also.  Brown  v.  Bellows,  4  Pick. 
(Mass.)  179. 

3  Thorp  V.  Cole,  2  C.  M.  &  R.  367; 
Harvey  v.  Shelton,  7  Beav.  455 ;  Moore 
V.  Barnett,  17  Ind.  349. 

*  Binsse  r.  Wood,  37  N.  Y.  526 ;  Pot- 
ter V.  Sterrett,  24  Pa.  St.  411  (choice 
to  be  made  by  parties). 

*Bean  v.  Wendell,  22  N.  H.  582; 
Campbell  r.  Western,  3  Paige  (N.  Y.), 
124;  Jackson  v.  Gager,  5  Cow.  (N.Y.) 
383. 

«  Yates  I'.  Russell.  17  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
461 ;  Maynard  r.  Frederick,  7  Cush. 
(Mass.)  247;  Ackley  r.  Finch,  7  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  290.  Compare  Blin  r.  Hay.  2 
Tyler  (Vt.),  304,  S.  C.  4  Am.  Dec.  738. 


592 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§467 


mission  or  by  statute/  and  it  is  generally  held  that  in  matters 
of  public  concern  such  an  award  is  sufficient.^ 

§  467.  Procedure. — At  common  law  it  is  not  necessary  thai, 
the  arbitrators  should  be  sworn ;^  but  in  many  of  the  States 
this  is  required  by  statute.  In  some  of  them  it  is  compulsory/ 
in  others  it  may  be  waived  by  the  parties.^  Each  party  is  en 
titled  to  be  present  at  the  hearing/  and  he  should,  therefore, 
be  given  reasonable  notice  of  the  time   and  place/  but  notice 


>  Spencer  v.  Curtis,  57  Ind.  221,  231 ; 
Buxton  V.  Howard,  38  Ind.  109 ;  Stir- 
inger  v.  Toy,  33  W.  Va.  86,  S.  C.  10  S. 
E.  R.  26;  Gas  Co.  r.  Wheeling,  8  W. 
Va.  320.  Even  in  such  a  case,  how- 
ever, it  seems  that  they  must  meet  and 
consult  or  act  together.  Moore  v.  Ew- 
ing,  Coxe  (N.  J.),  144,  S.  C.  1  Am.  Dec. 
195  and  note;  Henderson  v.  Buckley, 
14  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  292;  Tuscaloosa 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Jemison,  33  Ala.  476; 
Plews  V.  Middleton,  6  Q.  B.  845 ;  Bat- 
tey  V.  Button,  13  Johns.   (N.  Y.)  187. 

*Grindley  v.  Barker,  1  Bos.  &  P. 
229;  King  v.  Beeston,  3  T.  R.  592; 
Patterson  v.  Leavitt,  4  Conn.  50,  S.  C. 
10  Am.  Dec.  98;  Co.  Litt.,  181&.  All, 
however,  should  meet  and  consult  or 
act  together.  People  v.  Coghill,  47 
Cal.  361 ;  Lee  v.  Parry,  4  Denio  (N. 
Y.),  125;  Keeler  v.  Frost,  22  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  400;  Crocker  v.  Crane,  21 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  211 ;  People  v.  Batch- 
elor,  22  N.  Y.  128.  But  where  a  ma- 
jority have  authority  to  make  the 
award,  and  one,  after  due  notice,  fails 
or  refuses  to  attend  or  take  part,  the 
majority  may  proceed  without  him. 
Crofoot'u.  Allen,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  494 ; 
Bulson  V.  Lohnes,  29  N.  Y.  291 ;  Dodge 
V.  Brennan,  59  N.  H.  138;  Cumber- 
land V.  North  Yarmouth,  4  Greenl. 
(Me.)  459;  Short  v.  Pratt,  6  Mass. 
496;  Carpenter  v.  Wood,  1  Mete. 
(Mass.)  409. 

'  Bradstreet  v.  Erskine,  50  Me.  407  ; 


Daggy  V.  Cronnelly,  20  Ind.  474;  Dick- 
erson  v.  Hays,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  44; 
Howard  v.  Sexton,  4  N.  Y.  157 ;  Payne 
V.  Crawford  (Ala.),  10 So.  R.  911.  See, 
also,  Ogden  v.  Forney,  33  Iowa,  205. 

*Inslee  v.  Flagg,  26  N.  J.  L.  368,  S. 
C.  69  Am.  Dec.  580;    Ford  v.  Potts,  6 
N.  J.  L.  388;  Overton  v.  Alpha,  13  La. 
Ann.  558;  Walt  v.  Huse,  38  Mo.  210 
French  v.  Moseley,  1  Litt.  (Ky.)  247 
Deputy  V.  Belts,  4  Harr.  (Del.)  352 
Hepburn  v.  Jones,  4  Colo.  98;  Tom- 
linson  v.  Hammond,  8  Iowa,  40. 

^Newcomb  v.  Wood,  97  U.  S.  581; 
Browning  v.  Wheeler,  24  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  258,  S.  C.  35  Am.  Dec.  617 ;  Day 
V.  Hammond,  57  N.  Y.  479,  S.  C.  15 
Am.  R.  522;  Tucker  v.  Allen,  47  Mo. 
488;  Hill  v.  Taylor,  15  Wis.  190;  Mil- 
waukee County  Supervisors  v.  Ehlers, 
45  Wis.  281 ;  Woodrow  v.  O'Conner, 
28Vt.  776. 

^  Hollingsworth  v.  Leiper,  1  Dall. 
(U.  S.)  161;  Tate  v.  Vance,  27  Gratt. 
(Va.)  571;  Cleland  v.  Hedly,  5  R.  I. 
163;  Conrad  v.  Massasoit  Ins.  Co.,  4 
Allen  (Mass.)  20;  Semple  v.  Goeh- 
ringer  (Minn.),  54  N.  W.  R.  481;  Al- 
exanders. Cunningham,  111  111.  511; 
Graham  v.  Woodall,  86  Ala.  313,  S.  C. 
5  So.  R.  687. 

'  Lutz  V.  Linthicum,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.) 
165 ;  Passmore  v.  Pettit,  4  Dall.  (U.  S.) 
271 ;  Hagner  v.  Musgrove,  1  Dall.  (U. 
S.)  83;  Linde  v.  Republic,  etc.,  Co., 
18  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.)  362;   Elmendorf  v. 


H07 


AKF.ITIIATION    AND    AWAKD. 


i93 


may  be  waived  by  oither  party,'  aiul  if  lie  does  not  attend  after 
reasonable  notice,  the  arbitrators  may  proceed  with  the  hearing 
in  his  absence.'*  The  manner  of  conducting  the  hearing  is 
largely  in  the  discretion  of  the  arbitrators.-^  Evidence  should 
be  heard  and  witnesses  examined  in  the  presence  of  the  parties.* 
But  the  arbitrators,  where  the  submission  is  general,  are  judges 
of  both  the  law  and  the  facts-''  and  may  decide  according  to 
what  they  believe  to  be  right  and  just,  without  strictly  follow- 
ing all  the  technical  rules  of  law.*"'     They  must  not,  however, 


Harris,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  628,  S.  C.  35 
Am.  Dec.  587 ;  Curtis  v.  Sacramento,  G4 
Cal.  102 ;  Young  v.  Reynolds,4  Md.  375 ; 
McKinney  v.  Page,  32  Me.  513;  Drey- 
fous  V.  Hart,  36  La.  Ann, 929 ;  Goodall  v. 
Cooley,  29 N.  H.  48 ;  Dormsy  v.  Know- 
er,  55  Iowa,  722;  Billings  v.  Billings, 
110  Mass.  225;  Wood  v.  Ilelme,  14  R. 
I.  325;  Warren  i'.  Tinsley,  53  Fed.  R. 
689.  But  notice,  after  a  hearing,  of 
the  meeting  to  formulate  the  award  or 
to  perform  merely  ministerial  acts  is 
unnecessary.  Zell  v.  Johnston,  76  N. 
Car.  302;  Roloson  v.  Carson,  8  Md. 
208 ;  Straw  i'.  Truesdale.  59  N.  II.  109 ; 
James  v.  Schroeder,  61  Mich.  28,  S.  C. 
27  N.  W.  R.  850. 

•  Pike  V.  Stallings,  71  Ga.860;  Kane 
V.  Fond  du  Lac,  40  Wis.  495 ;  Dicker- 
son  V.  Hays,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  44; 
Hubbard  v.  Hubbard,  61  111.  228; 
Duckworth  v.  Diggles,  139  Mass.  51 ; 
Shockey  v.  Glasford,  6  Dana  (Ky.), 
9;  Whitlock  v.  Ledford,  82  Ky.  390; 
Weberly  v.  Matthews,  91  N.  Y.  648; 
Graham  v.  Graham,  9  Pa.  St.  254,  S. 
C.  49  Am.  Dec.  557.  So,  proceeding 
with  a  hearing  before  two  arbitrators, 
without  objection,  is  a  waiver  of  the 
right  under  the  submission  to  have  a 
third  arbitrator  called  in.  Badders  v. 
Davis,  88  Ala.  367,  S:  C.  6  So.  R.  834. 

'  Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  Me.  251 ;  Bray 
V.  English,  1  Conn.  498;  Scott  v.  Van 
Sandau,  6  Q.  B.  237. 
38 


*  Morse  on  Arb.  and  Award,  115; 
Bray  r.  English,  1  Conn.  498;  Tillam 
r.  Copp,  5  C.  B.  211 ;  Blodgett  v.  Prince, 
109  Mass.  44;  Sizer  r.  Burt,  4  Deuio 
(N.  Y.),  426;  Williams  v.  Hayes,  20 
N.  Y.  58;  Sweeney  v.  Vaudry,  2  Mo. 
App.  352. 

*  Ilollingsworth  v.  Leiper,  1  Dall. 
(U.  S.)  161 ;  Peters  v.  Newkirk,  6  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  103;  Halstead  v.  Seaman,  82 
N.  Y.  27;  Shipman  v.  Fletcher,  82  Va. 
601 ;  Hart  v.  Kennedy,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  51, 
S.  C.  20  Atl.  R.  29;  Milner  v.  Noel,  43 
Ind.  324;  Braddick  v.  Thompson,  8 
East,  344;  Phipps  r.  Ingram,  3  Dowl. 
669;  Cameron  r.  Castleberry,  29  Ga. 
495;  Emery  v.  Owings,  7  Gill.  (Md.) 
488,  S.  C.  48  Am.  Dec.  580. 

*  Johnson  r.  Noble,  13  N.  II.  286,  S. 
C.  38  Am.  Dec.  485;  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Scruggs,  50  Miss.  284; 
Fudichar  r.  Guardian,  etc.,  Co.,  62  N. 
Y.  392;  Price  r.  Brown,  98  N.  Y.  388; 
Maynard  v.  Frederick,  7Cush.  (Mass.) 
247;  Spear  v.  Stacy,  26  Vt.  61 ;  Kirten 
r.  Spears,  44  Ark.  166;  Burchell  v. 
Marsh.  17  How.  (U.  S.)  344. 

«Cobb  r.  Dolphin  Mfg.  Co..  108  N. 
Y.  463;  Campbell  r.  Western.  3  Paige 
(N.  Y.)  124;  Robbinsr.  Killebrew,  95 
N.  Car.  19;  Maynard  r.  Frederick,  7 
Cush.(Mass.)  247 ;  Greenough  v.  Rolfe, 
4  N.  II.  357  ;  Ilazeltine  v.  Smith.  3  Vt. 
535;  Jocelyn  r.  Donnel,  Peck,  274,  S. 
C.  14  \m.  Dec.  753;    Hooper  v.  Tay- 


594 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


468 


exceed  their  authority,  which  is  to  be  determined  from  the  stat- 
ute, rule  of  court,  or  submission  under  which  they  act.^ 

§  468.  The  award. — Where  no  particular  form  is  required 
by  the  submission  or  by  statute,  no  technical  expressions  or 
introductory  recitals  are  necessary,  and  any  form  of  words 
amounting  to  a  decision  of  the  questions  submitted  will  con- 
stitute a  good  award  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned. ^  Unless 
a  written  award  is  required  by  the  submission  or  by  statute,  a 
verbal  award  will  suffice,^  except  where  it  affects  the  title  to 
real  estate.*  So,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  requirement,  it  need 
not  be  under  seal,^  nor  witnessed.*^     But  where  the  submission 


lor,  39  Me.  224;  Fennimore  v.  Childs, 
1  Halst.  (N.  J.  L.)  386;  Ruckman  v. 
Ransom,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  118;  Bassett  v. 
Cunningham,  9  Gratt.  (Va.)  684;  Ed- 
rington  v.  League,  1  Texas,  64 ;  Brush 
V.  Fisher,  70  Mich.  469,  S.  C.  14  Am. 
St.  R.  510. 

1  Cook  V.  Carpenter,  34  Vt.  121,  S.  C. 
80  Am.  Dec.  670,  and  note;  Richard- 
son V.  Huggins,  23  N.  H.  106;  Mayor 
V.  Butler,  1  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  325 ;  Butler 
V.  Mayor,  7  Hill  (N.  Y.),  329 ;  Blakely 
V.  Frazier,  11  S.  Car.  122;  Palmer  v. 
Van  Wyck  (Tenn.),  21  S.  W.  R.  761; 
Garrow  V.  Nicolai  (Ore.),  32  Pac.  R. 
1036;  Herbst  v.  Hagenaers,  137  N.  Y. 
290,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  315;  Luther  v. 
Medbury  (R.  I.),  26  Atl.  R.37;  King, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  City  of  St.  Louis,  43  Fed. 
R.  768,  S.  C.  10  L.  R.  A.  826;  Leslie 
V.  Leslie  (N.  J.),  24  Atl.  R.  319;  .Jop- 
lin  V.  Postlethwaite,  61  L.  T.  R.  629. 

^Ott  V.  Schroeppel,  5  N.  Y.  482; 
Piatt  V.  Smith,  14  .Johns.  (N.  Y.)  368; 
Caldwell  v.  Dickinson,  13  Gray 
(Mass.),  365;  Miller?;.  Goodwine,  29 
Ind.  46;  Gulley  v.  Macy,  89  N.  Car. 
343;  Myers  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 
Curt.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  28;  Rogers  v.  Ta- 
tum,  25  N.  J.  L.  281 ;  Hanson  v.  Web- 
ber, 40  'Me.  194 ;  Lamphire  v.  Cowan, 
39  Vt.  420;  Lock  v.  Vulliamy,  5  B.  & 
Ad.  600;  Matson  v.  Trower,  Ryan  & 


M.  17;  Smith  v.  Hartley,  10  Com.  B. 
800 ;  Upshaw  v.  Hargrove,  14  Miss.  286 ; 
Rigden  v.  Martin,  6  Har.  &  J.  (Md.) 
403;  Rixford  v.  Nye,  20  Vt.  132; 
Houghton  V.  Burroughs,  18  N.  H.  499; 
Davies  v.  Pratt,  17  Com.  B.  183;  Clan- 
ton  V.  Price,  90  N.  Car.  96;  Payne  v. 
Crawford,  11  So.  R.  725;  Vaughan 
V.  Smith,  69  Ala.  92 ;  Negley  v.  Stew- 
art, 10  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  207;  Knight 
V.  Holden,  104  N.  Car.  107,  S.  C.  10 
S.  E.  R.  90;  George  v.  Lousley,  8 
East,  13. 

3  Gay  V.  Waltman,  89  Pa.  St.  453 ; 
Marsh  v.  Packer,  20  Vt.  198 ;  Goodell 
V.  Raymond,  27  Vt.  241 ;  Valentine  v. 
Valentine,  2  Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  430; 
Phelps  V.  Dolan,  75  111.  90;  Sawyer  v. 
Fellows,  6  N.  H.  107,  S.  C.  25  Am. 
Dec.  452 ;  White  v.  Fox,  29  Conn.  570 ; 
Shelton  v.  Alcox,  11  Conn.  240 ;  Kelley 
V.  Adams,  120  Ind.  340,  S.  C.  22  N.  E. 
R.  317. 

*  Philbrick  v.  Preble,  18  Me.  255,  S. 
C.  36  Am.  Dec.  718,  and  note ;  Jones 
V.  Dewey,  17  N.  H.  596 ;  Byam  v.  Rob- 
bins,  6  Allen  (Mass.),  63;  Buker  v. 
Bowden,  83  Me.  67,  S.  C.  21  Atl.  R.  748. 

*  McAdams  v.  Stilwell,  13  Pa.  St.  90; 
Owen  V.  Boerum,  23  Barb.  (N.Y.)  187. 

« Hedrick  v.  Judy,  23  Ind.  548 ;  Car- 
son ?;.  Early  wine,  14  Ind.  256;  Valle 
V.  Railroad  Co.,  37  Mo.  445. 


§468 


ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 


595 


requires  that  the  award  be  under  seal,^  or  in  writing, ''^  the  fail- 
ure to  comply  with  such  requirement  will  vitiate  the  award. 
It  should,  however,  be  co-extensive  with  the  submission  and 
dispose  of  the  entire  subject-matter  submitted.'^  It  should  also 
be  final,*  possible"**  and  at  least  reasonably  certain;''  but  it  need 
not  pass  upon  each  of  several  matters  submitted  separately,' 
unless  either  expressly  or  impliedly  required  by  the  submis- 
sion.^ Finally,  the  award  should  be  mutual,^  but  the  meaning 
of  this  requirement  is  simply  that  "the  award  must  be  so  con- 
structed as  not  to  leave  him  who  is  to  pay  liable  to  be  sued  for 


>  Price  t'.  Thomas,  4  Mtl.  oH ;  Rea  v. 
Gibbons,  7  Serg.  c^  R.  (Pa.)  204;  Stan- 
ton V.  Henry,  U  Jolins.  (N.  Y.)  133. 
Compare  Mathews  v.  Miller,  25  W. 
Va.  817. 

» Tudor  V.  Scovell,  20  N.  H.  174; 
State  V.  Gurnee,  14  Kan.  111. 

^  Bean  v.  Bean,  25  W.Va.  004 ;  Ham- 
ilton V.  Hart,  125  Pa.  St.  142;  S.  C.  17 
Atl.  R.  226;  Jones  r.  Wehvood, 
71  N.  Y.  208;  Jackson  v.  Ambler,  14 
Johns.  (X.  Y.)  96;  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  V.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  139 
Mass.  463;  Edwards  v.  Stevens,  3  Al- 
len (Mass.),  315;  McGregor,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  V.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
49  Iowa,  604;  Dogge  v.  Northwestern, 
etc.,  Co.,  49  Wis.  501 ;  Porter  r.  Scott, 
7Cal.  312;  Carnochan  v.  Christie,  11 
Wheat.  (U.  S.)  446;  Waller  v.  Shan- 
non, 44  Conn.  480;  Varney  i\  Brew- 
ster, 14  N.  H.  49;  Gooch  r.  McKnight, 
10  Humph.  (Tenn.)  229;  Scott  r. 
Barnes,  7  Pa.  St.  134.  Compare  Pearce 
V.  Mclntyre,  29  Mo.  423 ;  Lynch  r.  Nu- 
gent, 80  "la.  422,  S.  C.  46  N.  W.  R.  61 ; 
Moorer.  Gherkin, Busb.L.(N.Car.)73; 
Smith  r.  Demarest,  8  N.  J.  L.  195; 
:McCullough  r.  McCullough,  12Ind.4S7. 

♦Colconl  V.  Fletclier,  50  Me.  398; 
Waite  r.  Barry,  12  Wend.  (N.Y.)  377; 
Lincoln  v.  \Vhittent(>ii  Mills.  12  Mete. 
(Mass.)  31 ;  McKeen  r.  Oliphant,  18 N. 
J.  L.  442;  Patton  r.  Baini,  7  Tred.  Eq. 


(N.  Car.)  255;  Coghilli'.  Hord,  1  Dana 
(Ky.),  350,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  148; 
Byars  v.  Thompson,  12  Leigh  (Va.), 
550,  S.  C.  37  Am.  Dec.  680. 

^Martin  v.  Williams,  13  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  264;  Yeamans  i'.  Yeamans,  99 
Mass.  585;  Curd  r.  Wallace,  7  Dana 
(Ky.),  190,  S.  C.  32  Am.  Dec.  85; 
Thirsley  v.  Helbot,  3  Mod.  272 ;  Ad- 
ams r.  Staley,  2  Show.  61. 

6  Banks  y.  Adams,  23  Me.  259;  Ent- 
nier  v.  Shope,  43  Pa.  St.  110;  Parker 
V.  Eggleston,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  128; 
Whitcher  v.  Whitcher,  49  N.  H.  176, 
S.  C.  6  Am.  R.  486;  Alfred  r.  Kanka- 
kee, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  92  111.  609;  Lyle 
I'.  Rodgers,  5  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  394; 
Crawford  r.  Orr,  84  N.  Car.  246; 
Schuyler  u.  Van  Der  Veer,  2Caines  (N. 
Y.),235;  Ingraham  r.  Whitmore,  75 
111.  24;  Harris  r.  Social  Mfg.  Co.,  9  R. 
1.99,  S.  C.  11  Am.  R.  224. 

^Lamphire  v.  Cowan,  39  Vt.  420 
Sides  V.  Brendlinger,  14  Neb.  491 
Strong  V.  Strong,  9  Cush.  (Mass.)  560 
Blackwell  r.  Goss,  116  Mass.  394 
Stearns  r.  Cope,  109  111.  340;  Vannah 
V.  Carney.  69  Me.  221. 

'Houston  J'.  Pollard,  9  Mctc.  I  Mass.) 
164. 

'Matter  of  Williain.s,  4  IVnio  (N. 
Y.),  194:  Furbish  r.  Hall,  S  Mo.  .S15; 
Onion  i\  Robinson,  15  Vt.  510;  Miller 
r.  Moore,7Serg.  it  R.  (Pa.)  164. 


596 


THE    WOKK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§468 


the  same  cause."  ^  In  other  words,  "this  mutuality  is  noth- 
ing more  than  that  the  thing  awarded  to  be  done  should  be  a 
final  discharge  of  all  future  claim  by  the  party  in  whose  favor 
the  award  is  made  against  the  other  for  the  causes  submitted."^ 
Awards  are  liberally  construed  and  will  be  given  effect  by  the 
courts,  when  consistent  with  legal  principles,  in  accordance 
with  the  intent  of  the  arbitrators.^  All  reasonable  presump- 
tions will  be  indulged  in  their  favor.*  When  the  submission  or 
the  statute  requires  the  award  to  be  delivered  or  published  actual 
deliver}^  or  publication  is  essential  to  render  it  effective;^  but, 
in  the  absence  of  such  a  provision,  delivery  is  unnecessary.^ 


^  Blackledge  v.  Simpson,  2  Hayw. 
(N.  Car.)  30,  S.  C.  2  Am.  Dec.  614. 

''  Munro  v.  Alaire,  2  Caines  (N.  Y.), 
320.  See,  also,  Hanson  v.  Webber,  40 
Me.  194;  Cox  v.  Jagger,  2  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  638,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  522 ;  Borrets 
V.  Patterson,  Taylor  (N.  Car.),  37,  S. 
C.  1  Am.  Dec.  576;  McKeen  v.  Oli- 
phant,  18  N.  J.  L.  442 ;  Gibson  v.  Pow- 
ell, 13  Miss.  712;  Karthaus  v.  Ferrer, 
1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  222. 

3  Kendall  v.  Bates,  35  Me.  357 ;  Han- 
son V.  Webber,  40  Me.  194;  Grier  v. 
Grier,  1  Dall.  (U.  S.)  173;  Rogers  v. 
Carrothers,  26W.Va.238;  Sheffield  v. 
Clark,  73  Ga.  92;  Archer  v.  William- 
son, 2  Har.  &G.  (Md.)  62;  Jackson  v. 
Ambler,  14  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  96;  Ross  v. 
Watt,  16  111.  99;  Richardson  v.  Hug- 
gins,  23  N.  H.  106;  Burns?;.  Hendrix, 
54  Ala.  78;  Spear  w.  Hooper,  22  Pick. 
(Mass.)  144;  Skillings  v.  Coolidge,  14 
Mass.  43;  Robbins  v.  Killebrew,  95  N. 
Car.  19. 

*Merritt  v.  Merritt,  11  111.  565;  Mc- 
Millan r.  James,  105  111.  194;  Strong 
tj.  Strong,  9  Cush.  (Mass.)  560;  Kar- 
thaus  V.  Ferrer,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  222; 
Phipps  V.  Tompkins,  50  Ga.  641 ; 
Young  V.  Kinney,  48  Vt.  22;  Pol- 
lock V.  Sutherlin,  25  Gratt.  (Va.) 
78;  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Goehring, 
99  Pa.  St.  13 ;  Warner  v.  Collins,  135 


Mass.  26;  McDowell  v.  Thomas,  4  Neb. 
542;  Wood  v.  Treleven,  74  Wis.  577, 
S.C.  43N.W.  R.  488;  New  York,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Schnieder,  119  N.  Y.  475,  S.  C. 
24  N.  E.  R.  4;  Leslie  t'.  Leslie  (N.  J.), 
24  Atl.  R.  319 ;  Call  v.  Ballard,  65  Wis. 
187;  Neib  u.  Hinderer,  42  Mich.  451 ; 
Smith  V.  Minor,  1  N.  J.  L.  16;  Green 
V.  Ford,  17  Ark.  586. 

^Parsons  v.  Aldrich,  6  N.  H.  264; 
Denman  v.  Bayless,  22  111.  300 ;  Sellick 
V.  Adams,  15  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  197;  Gid- 
ley  V.  Gidley,  65  N.  Y.  169;  Kingsley 
V.  Bill,  9  Mass.  198;  Buck  v.  Wads- 
worth,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.),  321.  Publica- 
tion, in  this  connection,  simply  means 
notice  to  the  parties.  Knowlton  v. 
Homer,  30  Me.  552;  Pancoast  v.  Cur- 
tis, 6  N.  J,  L.  415;  Jones  v.  Dewey,  17 
N.  H.  596;  Francis  v.  Ames,  14  Ind. 
251;  Rundell  v.  La  Fleur,  6  Allen 
(Mass.) ,  480.  But  see,  under  the  Wis- 
consin statute,  Russell  v.  Clark,  60 
AVis.  284. 

« Crawford  v.  Orr,  84  N.  Car.  246; 
Rundell  v.  La  Fleur,  6  Allen  (Mass.), 
480;  Owen  v.  Boerum,  23  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  187 ;  Willard  V.  Bickford,  39  N.  H. 
536;  Houghton  v.  Burroughs,  18  N.  H. 
499.  And  it  may  be  waived.  Coulter 
V.  Coulter,  81  Ind.  542;  Perkins  v. 
Wing,  10  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  143;  Marsh 
V.  Curtis,  71  Ind.  377. 


§469 


ARUITKATION    AND    AWARD. 


597 


"In  legal  contomplation  the  award  takes  effect  when  ready  fcjr 
delivery  and  the  parties  have  been  notilied  to  that  effect.  That 
the  arbitrators  may  hold  it  as  security  for  the  payment  of  their 
charges,  etc.,  unless  tlie  agreement  stipulates  to  the  contrary, 
does  not  at  all  affect  tlic  force  or  effect  of  their  award."* 

§  409.  Effect  of  award. — A  valid  award  is  a  bar  to  any  ac- 
tion upon  the  demands  or  claims  therein  determined,''  and  in 
some  States  no  action  can  be  maintained  upon  any  matter 
within  the  scope  of  the  submission,  although  not  passed  u[)on 
by  the  arbitrators.^  It  has  the  effect  of  a  judgment,  in  whicii 
the  original  claim  is  merged,  but  it  may  contain  a  condition 
requiring  the  performance  of  certain  acts  before  it  can  be  made 
available.^  And  if  the  award  is  void  or  fails  it  will  not  ex- 
tinguish the  original  cause  of  action.^  An  unconditional 
award  of  chattels  vests  the  property  immediately  in  the  party 


*  Per  Gray,  J.,  in  New  York,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Schnieder,  119  N.  Y.  475.  See, 
also,  Ott  V.  Schroeppel,  3  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  56. 

»  Morse  r.  Bishop,  55  Vt.  231 ;  Gird- 
ler  r.  Garter,  47  N.  H.  305;  Ford  v. 
Burleigh,  60  N.  H.  27S;  Coleman  v. 
Wade,  6  N.  Y.  44;  Wiberly  r.  Mat- 
thews, 91  N.  Y.  648;  Groat  v.  Pracht, 
31  Kan.  656;  Curley  v.  Dean,  4  Conn. 
259,  S.  C.  10  Am.  Dec.  140;  Hadaway 
r.  Kelly,  78  111.  286;  Rogers  v.  Hol- 
den,  13  111.  293;  Handy  r.  Cobb,  44 
Miss.  699;  Anding  r.  Levy,  60  ^liss. 
487;  Leonard  r.  Wading,  etc.,  Co., 
113  Mass.  235;  Cook  r.  Gardner,  130 
Mass.  313;  Speer  r.  ^McChesney,  2 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  233;  Day  v.  Ronnin, 
3  Bing.  (N.  C.)  219;  Terre  Haute, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  126  Ind.  7, 
S.  C.  25  N.  E.  R.  831 ;  Baltes  v.  Bass 
Foundry,  etc.,  129  Ind.  185,  S.  C.  28  N. 
E.  R.  319.  Compare  Garrow  r.  Nicolai 
(Ore.),  32  Pac.  R.  1036;  Keeler  r. 
Harding,  23  Ark.  697;  Howett  v. 
Monical,  25  111.  122. 


'  Wheeler  v.  Van  Houten,  12  Johns. 
(N.Y.)  311 ;  Brazill  r.  Isham,  12  N.  Y. 
9;  Stipp  V.  Washington  Hall  Co.,  5 
Blackf.(Ind.)  473;  Roljinsonr.  Morse, 
26  Vt.  392;  Shackelford  r.  Pnrket,  2 
A.  K.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  435,  S.  C.  12  Am. 
Dec.  432;  Seely  r.  Pelton,  63  III.  101 ; 
IMcJimsey  v.  Traverse,  1  Stew.  (Ala.) 
244,  S.  C.  18  Am.  Dec.  43.  Contra, 
Webster  i'.  Lee,  5  Mass.  334;  King  r. 
Savory,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  312;  Mt. 
Desert  i'.  Tremont,  75  Me.  252;  Whit- 
temore  r.  Whittemore,  2  N.  H.  26; 
Hopson  r.  Doolittle,  13  Conn.  236; 
Keaton  r.  Mulligan,  43  Ga.  308;  Lee 
V.  Dolan,  39  N.  .1.  Eq.  193;  Hewitt  v. 
Furnian.  16  Serg.  I'ic  R.  (Pa.)  135. 

*  Commonwealth  v.  Pejepscut  Pro- 
prietors, 7  Mass.  399. 

*  Mayor  r.  Butler.  1  Barb.  (.N.Y.) 
325;  Haggart  v.  Morgan.  5  N.  Y.  422, 
S.  C.  55  Am.  Dec.  350;  Partwell  p. 
Horton.  28  Vt.  370;  Logsdon  r.  Rob- 
erts, 3  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  2.i5;  Canlield 
V.  Watortown  Ins.  Co.,  55  Wis.  419; 
Smith  V.  Holcomb,  99  Mass.  552. 


598 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§470 


to  whom  they  are  awarded/  but  an  award  of  land  simply  oper- 
ates as  an  estoppel  and  does  not  vest  the  title  without  a  con- 
veyance.'^ An  award,  ordinarily,  has  no  effect  as  against 
strangers,^  but  one  who  is  not  directly  a  party  to  the  submis- 
sion may,  by  his  acts,  or  agreement,  become  bound  by  the 
award.* 

§  470.  Enforcement  of  award.— A  valid  award  may  be  en- 
forced by  an  action  at  law,^  or,  if  no  adequate  remedy  at  law 
exists,  equity  will  compel  its  specific  performance.^  But  if 
certain  acts  are  required  by  the  award  to  be  done  by  one  party 
as  a  condition  precedent,  or  the  like,  he  must  show  that  he  has 
performed  or  offered  to  perform  them  before  he  can  maintain 
a  suit  upon  the  award. '^  When  the  submission  is  made  under 
a  rule  of  court,  or,  in  many  jurisdictions,  under  the  statute, 
judgment  is  usually  entered  upon  the  award  much  in  the  same 


iGirdler  v.  Carter,  47  N.  H.  305. 
But  an  award  fixing  the  amount  of  a 
claim  secured  by  chattel  mortgage 
does  not  of  itself  divest  the  legal  title 
to  the  mortgaged  property.  Collier  v. 
White  (Ala.),  12  So.  R.385.  See,  also, 
Gray  v.  Reed,  65  Vt.  178,  S.  C.  26  Atl. 
E.  526. 

"Jackson  v.  Gager,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
383;  Shepard  v.  Ryers,  15  Johns.  (N, 
Y.)  497;  Shelton  v.  Alcox,  11  Conn. 
240;  Grayu.  Berry,  9  N.  H.  473; 
Goodridge  v.  Dustin,  5  Mete.  (Mass.) 
363 ;  Doe  v.  Rosser,  3  East,  15 ;  Hun- 
ter V.  Rice,  15  East,  100. 

3  Woody  V.  Pickard,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
65;  Martin  v.  Williams,  13  Johns;  (N. 
Y.)  264;  Collins  v.  Freas,  77  Pa.  St. 
493;  Dale  v.  Mottram,  2  Barn.  291. 

*  Humphreys  v.  Gardner,  11  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  61 ;  George  v.  Johnson,  45  N. 
H.  456;  Macon  v.  Crump,  1  Call,  575; 
Schultz  V.  Lempert,  55  Texas,  273; 
Sears  v.  Vincent,  8  Allen  (Mass.),  507. 

* Dickerson  u.Tyner,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
253;  Scearce  v.  Scearce,  7  Ind.  286; 
Stevens  v.  Record,  56  Me.  488;  Burn- 


side  V.  Whitney,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  632, 
S.  C.  21  N.  Y.  148;  Rank  v.  Hill,  2 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  56,  S.  C.  37  Am.  Dec. 
483;  Bayne  v.  Morris,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
97;  Bates  v.  Curtis,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 
247 ;  Blanchard  v.  Murray,  15  Vt.  548 ; 
Webb  V.  Zeller,  70  Ind.  408. 
*  Jones  V.  Boston  Mill  Corporation, 

4  Pick.  507,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  358; 
Davis  V.  Havard,  15  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
165,  S.  C.  16  Am.  Dec.  537 ;  Brown  v. 
Burkenmeyer,  9  Dana  (Ky.),  159,  S. 
C.  33  Am.  Dec.  541 ;  McNeil  v.  Magee, 

5  Mason  (U.  S.),  244;  Whitney  v. 
Stone,  23  Cal.  275;  Maury  v.  Post,  55 
Hun  (N.  Y.),  454;  Kirksey  v.  Fike, 
27  Ala.  383,  S.  C.  62  Am.  Dec.  768; 
Blackett  v.  Bates,  L.  R.,  1  Ch.  App. 
117;  Norton  v.  Mascall,  2  Vern.  24. 

^  Jesse  V.  Cater,  28  Ala.  475 ;  Huy 
V.  Brown,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  591; 
Shearer  v.  Handy,  22  Pick.  (Mass.) 
417;  Hugg  V.  Collins,  18  N.  J.  L.  294; 
Leitch  V.  Beaty,  23  111.  642 ;  Lincoln  v. 
Cook,  3  111.  61 ;  Smith  v.  Stewart,  5 
Ind.  220;  Hoffman  v.  Hoffman,  26  N. 
J.  L.  175. 


§  471  ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD.  599 

manner  as  upon  the  verdict  of  a  jury/  although  a  rule  to  show 
cause  why  judgment  should  not  ijo  rendered  thereon  is  gener- 
ally required  to  be  tiikeii  and  served  upon  the  other  party  be- 
fore the  rendition  of  the  judgment.'^ 

§  471.  Impeaching  and  setting  aside  the  award. — It  is  said 
that  the  power  of  the  court  to  set  aside  an  award  or  to  enter 
judgment  thereon  is,  in  many  respects,  analogous  to  the  power 
exercised  by  the  court  in  granting  or  refusing  a  new  trial  after 
verdict.'^  But,  as  a  general  rule,  mere  error  in  judgment, 
where  the  arbitrators  act  in  good  faith  and  tliere  is  neither 
fraud  nor  misconduct,  will  not  be  a  sufficient  cause  for  setting 
aside  the  award.*  And  where  the  award  recites  that  the  arbi- 
trators have  disposed  of  all  the  matters  embraced  in  the  sub- 
mission, in  accordance  therewith,  it  seems  that  parol  evidence 
of  one  of  the  arbitrators  is  not  admissible  to  impeach  the  award 
and  its  recitals.^  It  is,  indeed,  a  general  rule,  subject  to  few 
exceptions,^  that  an  arbitrator  can  not  impeach  his  own  award,' 

'  Merritt  v.  Thompson,  27  N.  Y.  225;  Moore  r.  Barnett,  17  In<l.  349;  Carter 

Crook    V.    Chambers,    40    Ala.    239;  r.  Carter,  109  Mass.  30() ;    Portsmouth 

Whitis  r.  Culver,  2n  la.  30;    Sargent  v.  Norfolk  Co.,  31   Gratt.   (Va.)  727; 

V.  Ilampilon,  32  Me.  78;    Schriver  r.  Jenkins  r.  Meagher,  4*5  Miss.  84;  Mc- 

State,  9  Gill  &  J.    (Md.)  1;    Duer  v.  Cullough  v.  Mitchell,  42  Ga.49.5;  Bur- 

Boyd,  1  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  203;  Thorpe  roughs  v.  David,  7  la.  154;    Davis  r. 

V.  Starr,  17  111.  199;    Carsley  v.  Lind-  Henry,  121  Mass.  150;    York,  etc.,  R. 

say,  14  Cal.  390.                      "  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  246; 

»  Healy  ('.Isaacs,73Ind.226;  Shroyer  Lester  r.  Callaway,  73  Ga.  730;  Ap- 
r.  Bash,  57  Ind.  349;  Anderson  v.  peal  of  Morgan,  110  Pa.  St.  271.  S.  C. 
Anderson,  H5  Ind.  19H.  See,  also,  4  Atl.  R.  50(>.  But,  compare  Williams 
Shores  r.  Bowen,  44  Mo.  396.  But,  r.  Paschall,  4  Dall.  (U.  S.)  284;  Harts- 
compare  Kelly  r.  Morse,  3  Neb.  224.  home  V.  Cuttrell,  2   N.   J.    Eij.   297; 

'Buckwalter  r.  Russell,  119  Pa.  St.  Cieaveland  v.   Dixon,  4  J.  .1.  Marsh. 

495.  (Ky.)    226;     Sumpter    v.    Murreil,    2 

♦  Hall  V.  Norwalk,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Conn.  Bay.  450. 
105;  Brush  v.  Fisher,  70  Mich.  469,  S.  ^  Schmidt  v.  Glade,  126  111.  485. 
C.    14   Am.    St.   R.   510;     Masury   r.  "See,  for  exceptions,  Robertson   r. 
Whiton,   111  N.  Y.  679;    Turnhull  r.  McNiel,  12  Wend.   (N.  Y.)578;    Pul- 
Martin,  37   Ilow.Pr.  20;    Goddard  r.  Ham  r.  Pensoneau,  33  111.  375;   Hunts- 
King,  40  Minn.  164;  Baltimore,  etc.,  man  r.  Nichols.  11(>  Mass.  521 ;    Gay- 
R.  R.  Co.  V.  Canton  Co.,  70  Md.  405;  lord  r.  Norton,  130  Mass.  74;  O-sborne 
Burchell   r.  Marsh,  17  How.   (U.S.)  r.  Colvert,  86  N.  Car.  170. 
344;    Bean  v.  Wendell,  22  N.  H.  582;  'Tucker  v.  Page,  69  111.  179;    Stone 


600 


THE    WORK    OUT    OF    COURT. 


§471 


and  that  an  award,  final  and  valid  on  its  face,  can  not  be  im- 
peached by  extrinsic  evidence  where  there  is  no  charge  of 
fraud  or  misconduct.^  There  is  great  conflict  among  the  au- 
thorities upon  this  subject,  but  there  are  certain  grounds  recog- 
nized by  most  of  the  courts,  upon  which  an  award  may  be  set 
aside.  Some  of  these  may  be  regarded  as  exceptions  to  the 
general  rules  already  stated,  while  others  are  entirely  inde- 
pendent, being  "a  law  unto  themselves."  They  are  thus 
enumerated  and  explained  by  the  Missouri  Court  of  Appeals:^ 
"There  are  five  grounds,  and  only  five,  upon  which  the  courts 
will  set  aside  an  award.  These  are:  1.  The  insufficiency  of 
the  award.  That  means  that  it  is  not  certain,  final,  or  mutual; 
that  it  does  not  embrace  all  matters  submitted  to  the  arbitra- 
tors; or  that  it  does  embrace  matters  not  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion.^ 2.  A  mistake  of  fact  or  law  ajDparent  on  the  face  of  the 
award.*     3.   Irregularity  of  the  arbitrators  in  their  proceedings; 


V.  Atwood,  28  111.  30;  Bigelow  v.  May- 
nard,  4  Cush.  (Mass.)  317;  Withing- 
ton  V.  Warren,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  431 ; 
King  V.  Jemison,  33  Ala.  499;  Aid- 
rich  V.  Jessiman,  8  N.  H.  516. 

1  Valle  V.  North  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  37  Mo. 
445;  Bissell  v.  Morgan,  56  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  369;  Sweet  v.  Morrison,  116  N.  Y. 
19 ;  Todd  v.  Barlow,  2  Johns.  Ch.  (N. 
Y.)  551 ;  Brown  v.  Green,  7  Conn.  536 ; 
Ebert  v.  Ebert,  5  Md.  353;  Jocelyn  v. 
Donnel,  Peck  (Tenn.),  274,  S.  C.  14 
Am.  Dec.  753;  Wheatley  v.  Martin,  6 
Leigh  (Va.),  62;  Cobb  v.  Dortch,  52 
Ga.  548;  May  v.  Miller,  59  Vt.  577; 
Cochran  v.  Bartle,  91  Mo.  636 ;  Bum- 
pass  V.  Webb,  4  Port.  (Ala.)  65,  S.  C. 
29  Am.  Dec.  274;  Deford  v.  Deford, 
116  Ind.  523;  Baggalay  v.  Borthwick, 
10  C.  B.  N.  S.  61.  But,  compare  Bar- 
rows V.  Sweet,  143  Mass.  316;  Hall  v. 
Hinds,  2  M.  &  G.  847  ;  Fain  v.  Head- 
erick,  4  Caldw.  (Tenn.)  .327 ;  Moore  v. 
Luckess,  23  Gratt.  (Va.)  160;  Dodds  v. 
Hakes,  114  N.  Y.  260. 

*  Mitchell  V.  Curran,  1  Mo.  App.  453. 


^  See,  ante,  §  468.  See,  also,  Rich- 
ardson V.  Payne,  55  Ga.  167 ;  Collins 
V.  Freas,  77  Pa.  St.  493;  Porter  v. 
Scott,  7  Cal.  312;  Blackledge  v.  Simp- 
son, 2  Hayw.  (N.  Car.)  30,  S.  C.  2  Am. 
Dec.  614 ;  Herbst  v.  Hagenaers,  137  N. 
Y.  290,  S.  C.  33  N.  E.  R.  315 ;  Palmer  v. 
VanWyck(Tenn.),21S.W.R.761.  In 
McCall  V.  McCall,  36  S.  Car.  80,  S.  C.  15 
S.  E.  R.  348,  it  was  held  that  where  the 
award  exceeded  the  terms  of  the  sub- 
mission the  court  might  rectify  the  er- 
ror. See,  also,  Smith  v.  Paris,  70  Mo. 
615.  But,  compare  Carnochan  v. 
Christie,  11  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  446;  Com- 
monwealth V.  Pejepscut  Proprietors,  7 
Mass.  399 ;  Smith  v.  Cutler,  10  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  589,  S.  C.  25  Am.  Dec.  580. 

*  Nance  v.  Thompson,  1  Sneed. 
(Tenn.)  320;  Jocelyn  r.  Donnel,  Peck 
(Tenn.),  274,  S.  C.  14  Am.  Dec.  753 
and  note;  Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray, 6 
Mete.  (Mass.)  131;  Smith  v.  Riilroad 
Co.,  16  Gray  (Mass.),  521 ;  Greenough 
V.  Rolfe,  4  N.  H.  357;  Allen  v.  Miles, 
4  Harr.  (Del.)  234;    Smith  v.  Cutler, 


§471 


ARBITRATION    AND    AWARD. 


601 


as  a  refusal  or  neglect  to  examine  witnesses,  or  in  not  giving 
notice  of  the  proceedings.^  4.  Corruption  or  misbehavior  of 
the  arbitrators.'^     5.   Fraud  or  concealment  of  the  evidence  by 


10  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  589,  S.  C.  25  Am. 
Dec.  580;  Prescott  v.  Fellows,  41  N.  II. 
9,  S.C.  77  Am.Dec.752 ;  Powell  v.  Riley, 
15  Lea  (Tenu.),  153;  Garvey  v.  Carey, 
7  Robt.  (N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.)  286.  But  the 
general  rule,  as  already  stated,  is  that 
mere  error  in  judgment  will  not  ordi- 
narily be  cause  for  setting  aside  an 
award,  and  that  where  there  is  a  mis- 
take either  as  to  law  or  facts  it  must 
be  apparent  upon  the  face  of  the 
award  in  order  to  cause  it  to  be  set 
aside.  In  most  of  the  cases  above  cited 
there  was  something  to  show  that  the 
arbitrators  had  exceeded  their  power, 
or  made  an  award  different  from  what 
they  intended  and  would  have  made 
if  there  had  been  no  mistake ;  or  that 
the  submission  required  them  to  fol- 
low the  law  in  the  particular  case,  or 
provided  that  the  award  should  be 
approved  or  reviewed  by  the  court. 

'  See  nute,i^  467.  See,  also,  Lutz  v. 
Linthicum,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.)  165;  Dick- 
inson V.  R.  R.  Co.,  7  W.  Va.  390;  El- 
mendorff  v.  Harris,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
628 ;  Van  Cortlandt  v.  Underbill,  17 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  405;  Halstead  v.  Sea- 
man, 82  N.  Y.  27;  Milner  v.  Noel,  43 
Ind.  324 ;  Graham  v.  Woodall,  86  Ala. 
313;  Vessell,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  126 
111.  250;  Hurdle  v.  Stallings,  109  N. 
Car.  6,  S.  C.  13  S.  E.  R.  720;  Phipps 
V.  Ingram,  3  Dowl.  669;  Pepper  v. 
Gorham,  4  Moore,  148 ;  In  re  Maunder, 
49  L.  T.  R.  535 ;  Gladwin  v.  Chilcote,  9 
Dowl.  550;  Samuel  v.  Cooper,  2  A.  & 
E.  752.  Where  the  erroneous  rejec- 
tion of  evidence  is  the  ground  of  at- 
tack ,  the  evidence  rejected  should  be 
set  forth.  Leslie  v.  Leslie  (X.  J.),  24 
Atl.  R.  319;  Fowler  v.  Jackson,  86 Ga. 


337,  S.  C.  12  S.  E.  R.  811.  irregulari- 
ties in  tlie  proceedings  may  be  waived 
by  appearing  and  taking  part  without 
objection,  or  by  ratifying  tlie  award. 
Graham  t*.  Graham,  12  Pa.  St.  128; 
Deering  v.  Saco,  68  Me.  322 ;  Woods  v. 
Page,  37  Vt.  252;  Duckworth  v.  Dig- 
gles,  1.39  Mass.  51,  S.  C.  29  N.  E.  R. 
221 ;  Maynard  v.  Frederick,  7  Cush. 
(Mass.)  247 ;  Madison  Ins.  Co.  v.  Grif- 
fin, 3  Ind.  277;    Shockey  v.  Glasford, 

6  Dana  (Ky.),9;  Miller  i'.  Brumbaugh, 

7  Kan.  343;  Hoogs  v.  Morse,  31  Cal. 
128;  McShane  v.  Gray,  13  Iowa,  504; 
Reynolds  v.  Roebuck,  37  Ala.  408.  The 
last  four  cases  just  cited  were  cases  of 
ratification. 

*  Hyeronimus  v.  Allison,  52  Mo.  102 ; 
Hartford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bonner,  etc.,  Co., 
44  Fed.  R.  151,  S.  C.  11  L.  R.  A.  623; 
Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  6  Mete. 
(Mass.)  131;  Sisk  v.  Garey,  27  Md. 
401 ;  Moshier  v.  Shear,  102  111.  169,  S. 
C.  40  Am.  R.  573;  Smith  v.  Smith,  28 
111.  56;  Burrows  v.  Dickinson,  35  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  492;  Smith  v.  Cooley,  5  Daly 
(N.  Y.),401;  Bash  v.  Christian,  77 
Ind.  290;  Robinson  r.  Shanks,  118 
Ind.  125;  Shipman  v.  Fletcher,  82  Va. 
601 ;  Chism  r.  Schipper,  51  N.  J.  L.  1, 
S.  C.  2  L.  R.  A.  544.  But  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases  the  irregularity  or  mis- 
conduct was  held  to  be  so  slight  as 
not  to  be  sufficient  cause  for  setting 
aside  the  award.  Simons  v.  Mills,  80 
Cal.  118;  Cutter  v.  Carter,  29  Vt.  72; 
Flatter  v.  McDermitt,  25  Ind.  326; 
Noyes  r.  Gould,  57  N.  H.  20;  Rheem 
V.  Allison,  2  Serg.  A  R.  (Pa.)  113; 
Plummer  v.  Sanders,  55  N.  H.  23;  An- 
derson V.  Burchett,  48  Kan.  153,  S.  C. 
29  Pac.  R.  315. 


602 


THE    WORK    OUT   OF    COURT. 


§471 


the  parties  obtaining  the  award.  "^  Where  there  is  no  ade- 
quate remedy  at  law  equity  will  set  it  aside  or  grant  relief  upon 
the  ground  of  fraud,  accident  or  mistake,^  but,  ordinarily, 
where  the  objections  to  the  award  can  be  taken  advantage  of 
as  a  defense  to  a  suit  thereon,  equity  will  not  interfere.^  In 
many  of  the  States,  where  the  statute  so  provides  or  the  sub- 
mission is  under  a  rule  of  court,  the  award  may  be  vacated, 
for  a  sufficient  cause,  upon  motion.* 


1  Catlett  V.  Dougherty,  114  111.  568 ; 
Chambers  v.  Crook,  42  Ala.  171,  S.  C. 
94  Am.  Dec.  637;  Baird^^.  Crutchfleld, 
6  Humph.  (Tenn.)  171;  Spurck  v. 
Crook,  19  111.  415;  Strong  v.  Strong,  9 
Cush.  (Mass.)  560;  Beam  v.  Macom- 
ber,  33  Mich.  127;  Mathews  v.  Math- 
ews, 1  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  669;  McFarland 
V.  Mathis,  10  Ark.  560;  Russell  on 
Powers  of  an  Arbitrator,  etc.,  672, 673. 

'^Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Polly, 
14  Gratt.  (Va.)  447;  Eisenmeyer  v. 
Sauter,  77  111.  515 ;  Craft  v.  Thompson, 
61  N.  H.  536;  Thrasher  v.  Overby,  51 
Ga.  91 ;  Rand,  Adm'r,  v.  Redington, 
13  N.  H.  72,  S.  C.  38  Am.  Dec.  475; 
Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  39 
Fed.  R.  52;  2  Story's  Eq.,  675;  2  Pom. 
Eq.,  §§  871,  919;  2  Beach  Mod.  Eq., 
§  60 ;  Russell  on  Powers  of  an  Arbi- 
trator, etc.,  697 ;  Adams'  Eq.,  192,  193. 
In  a  bill  to  set  aside  an  award  upon 
the  ground  of  fraud,  partiality  or  mis- 
take, the  facts  and  objections  should 
be  specifically  stated ;  mere  general 
allegations  are  insufficient.    Bowden 


V.  Crow,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  591,  S.  C.  21 
S.  W.  R.  612;  Hart  v.  Kennedy  (N. 
J.),  20  Atl.  R.  29;  Tittenson  v.  Peat, 
3  Atk.  529. 

2  Emerson  v.  Udall,  13  Vt.  477,  S.  C. 
37  Am,  Dec.  604;  Bean  v.  Farnam,  6 
Pick.  (Mass.)  269;  Elliott  u.  Adams,  8 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  103;  Home  Ins.  Co.  of 
N.  Y.  V.  Stanchfield,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.) 
425. 

*Muldrow  V.  Norris,  2  Cal.  74,  S,  C. 
56  Am.  Dec.  313;  United  States  v. 
Farragut,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  406,  414; 
Wiley  V.  Platter,  17  111.  538;  Aubel  v. 
Ealer,  2  Binn.  582,  note;  2  Chitty's 
Gen.  Pr.  121;  Russell  on  Powers  of 
an  Arbitrator,  etc.,  652,  etseq.;  Morse 
on  Arb.  and  Award,  612.  Where  it  is 
good  as  a  common  law  award,  but  the 
judgment  is  invalid  under  the  statute, 
it  has  been  held  proper  to  merely  stay 
the  judgment  and  proceedings  there- 
under and  to  refuse  to  set  the  award 
aside.  Kreiss  v.  Hotaling,  96  Cal.  617, 
S.  C.  31  Pac.  R.  740. 


END   OF  VOLUME   I. 


LAW  LIBRARY 


-"■SS.^'""^" 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  fAfji  iTv 


AA    000  728  212    2 


